Archive
Meridian Power?
.
.
Our household is with Meridian Energy.
If that’s the next “on the block” to be part-privatised, I’ll be on the phone within sixty seconds to change to Genesis.
.
.
= fs =
Binding future governments – a question.
A letter to the editor of the NZ Herald…
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM
subject: Letters to the editor.The EditorNZ HERALD.
.
Kia ora,
The National government wants to bind future governments to the Sky City deal for the next 35 years.
Can a Labour-Green government bind future National governments to not selling our state owned enterprises?
.
-Frank Macskasy
(address & phone number supplied)
.
.
= fs =
An Occupation to remind the Government…
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 7 May 2013 – Since the anti-asset sales march on 27 April (see: 27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Tahi)), a new occupation has been set up at the foot of Wellington Cenotaph, at the intersection of Lambton Quay and Bowen St.
A much more low-key event than the occupation of Wellington’s Civic Square in January 2012, the occupiers number only a few, with two tents, and signage;
.
Edd (L) and James (R), standing beside their tents.
.
James told this blogger that the occupation started soon after the 27 April protest march and he expected others to join in as time went by. He used the phrase,
“Get an education,
Join the Occupation!”
.
The Occupation supports and promotes several causes which are odf concern to communities around the country – issues which National studiously ignores, in favour of Big Business;
.
.
But the main message is one of peaceful protest against the sale of assets which we, the people, rightfully own;
.
.
And the accent is on a peaceful protest;
.
.
Edd and James keep the area clean and clear of rubbish and leaves at all times. The Council can rest easy that this Occupations will not result in an unsightly mess;
.
.
They are both keen to keep negative elements away from the Occupation;
.
.
In fact, James told this blogger that they had learned from their mistakes from the previous occupation of Wellington’s Civic Square and were adamant that they wanted no alcohol, drugs, or “feral” element associated with their protest. At all times, James insisted, they wanted to stay On Message, and to engage with the public – not freak them out.
James said that their staunch insistance on no alcohol or drugs and good behaviour had resulted in a positive response from Police and the Council. They also had full support from the Global Occupy movement and from Tainui, which was planning to visit them.
Staying On Message – and the message was simply;
.
.
According to James and Edd, their actions were for the country and for future generations. James said,
“People get used to being debt slaves,” and the loss of state assets would push up prices and place our country further into into.
James is not wrong. As the chart below shows, private debt has ballooned in the last two decades;
.
Source: NZ Reserve Bank
.
When a passerby asked James,
“So you want to destroy the government ?”
James replied,
“No, We want you to learn.”
Amen to that, brother.
.
*
.
Previous Related Blogposts
27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Tahi)
27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Rua)
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Rua)
Continued from: 27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 27 April - Under a clear, sunny sky and only a slight breeze, the march pushed off at around 2.45pm, with a police escort;
.
.
Following the police vehicle, the lead marchers, proudly grasping a message aimed at all National ministers;
.
.
The marchers were in good spirit – knowing that they were on the side of the angels on this issue;
.
.
Labour and Mana standing side by side. A portent of things to come after the 2014 election? (Or earlier, if this rotten government collapses, or Key has a Muldoon-”moment” and calls for a snap election.)
If the sale of Mighty River Power goes badly for the thieving Nats; or Ohariu MP, Peter Dunne realises that the government he is a part of is on a hiding to nowhere, a snap election may be on the cards.
We can only hope/pray…
.
.
Lots of smiling faces; lots of hope and optimism for the future of this country;
.
.
A bit of humour from one of the protesters;
.
.
Aside from a couple of clowns who thought they were being clever (see dickhead on the left), we received good support from by-standers. Several joined the protest march – note the lady in the pink jersey on the right, who stepped off the footpath, and walked with us;
.
.
Bringing up the rear of the protest march;
.
.
Where there were smart-arses yelling desparaging comments, they were generally inarticulate boofheads. These four young ‘gentlemen’ yelled abuse, and in the process showed us the calibre of right wing fools. No doubt they’ll become typical National Party (or ACT, if it survives) politicians;
.
.
Ngarie had so much energy, as she took part in the chants and had some highly critical comments of her own to shout. People were left in no doubt what she thought of National and our illustrious Dear Leader;
.
.
Near the end of the march; these guys may be at the bottom of the socio-economic heap, but they had a huge amount of positive, good nature and were staunch in their condemnation of National’s thieving of our state assets. When the poorest of the poor are politicised, the end is nigh for neo-liberals and their fellow-travellers;
.
.
The march eveventually wound it’s way up the entrance-way to Parliament. Note the senior citizens leading the way!
.
.
By the time the protesters had reached the Parliamentary fore-court, their numbers had swelled to around 500-700 (estimated);
.
.
Some street theatre by Aroha Priest, giving us a glimpse of a chilling future, where poverty has increased and homeless street-life is the ‘norm’;
.
.
Howard Phillips – Vice President of the Rail, Transport and Maritime Union – gave a rousing speech to the crowd, reminding us how many thousands of jobs had been lost over the last four years;
.
.
Peter Hicks – Tasmanian singer-song writer – and Marama Te Kira – local performer/songwriter – entertained the crowd with good music, assisted by an excellent sound-system.
A fine sunny day; good music; and “giving the fingers” to the Nats – what could be a better day?
.
.
.
And Marilyn Head – from the NZ Nurses Organisation – expressed an excellent appraisal of how the s TPPA – currently being negotiated in secret - will affect this country’s economic sovereignty. Marilyn pointed out that, in the past, we were able to re-nationalise stressed former-SOEs (KiwiRail and Air New Zealand).
Marilyn pointed out that the TPPA would no longer allow a New Zealand government the option of bailing out and re-nationalising a stressed ex-SOE (eg; Mighty River Power) and would tie it’s hands considerably. She raised the issue of trans-nationals suing our government; the loss of PHARMAC’s effectiveness; and secret overseas tribunals deciding disputes between coroporations and governments.
Marilyn said that the Australian government had refused to be a party to permitting corporations to sue them in Investor-Government disputes – but that National was prepared to sign up to that accord.
Held in secret tribunals, it puts New Zealand in a very dangerous position. More foolishness from National.
.
.
And meanwhile, lurking in the background, was this character. Perhaps waiting for the death of our economic sovereignty?
.
.
Not if we don’t let it happen.
Aotearoa – it’s NOT for sale!
.
*
.
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 27 April – On a crisp, summery day, citizens of Wellington (and some from further afield), began to assemble at Te Aro (“Pigeon”) Park, in Manners Street, to send (another) message to National ministers: Aotearoa is not for sale!
TV1 cameraman, with Police and protest organisers, together planning the march route and other measures to keep people safe during the event. There was excellent co-operation between both parties. ANFS has a solid record for peaceful, non-violent, law-abiding protest;
.
.
From about 2pm, the crowd quickly swelled from a few dozen, to several hundred. Ages ranged from young children, to the elderly. It was interesting to note that over half the assembled people were in their 20s or 30s.
The issue of state assets belonging to the people, has become an inter-generational matter of concern and deeply-held beliefs;
.
.
Question. Will all our assets be gone – flogged off to investors from Beijing, Berlin, or Boston – by the time this young fellow grows up? Will he be a tenant-worker in his own country – a country that was sold out from under his feet by venal, ignorant politicians and a distracted middle-class?
Answer? Not if we have anything to say about it!
.
.
From the young, to the older. This is an issue that cuts across generations, race, gender, class, etc;
.
.
Some good sounds from the Brass Razoo Solidarity Band;
.
.
Good representation from the young people of the Mana Party;
.
.
Plenty of good humour evident amongst the protest group. I wonder if Dear Leader would like this piece of art?Perhaps for a small sum donated to a worthy charity?
.
.
ANFS (Aotearoa Not For Sale) organiser, Ariana, addressing the crowd,
.
.
Young New Zealanders who want what we took for granted as children ourselves; clean rivers and clean seas. Is this too much to ask from a consumerist generation?
.
.
Simple messages on home-made placards;
.
.
Once Key and his cronies sell of our assets, what will be left for this young lady? And will she and her young generation curse us for letting it happen?
.
.
Another simple, home-made message from a New Zealander to the government;
.
.
A young socialist in the making? The struggle does not end here, nor will neo-liberalism triumph. Not whilst the young continue to bear the banner;
.
.
Another view of the crowd, listening to ANFS co-organiser, Francis, barely visible in the background (holding bullhorn);
.
.
I think a good number of people in this country would agree with these messages;
.
.
A good message – and one all governments should consider;
.
.
Three staunch MANA Party supporters. Note the message on the placard. Aside from simple-minded Tory supporters, who really believes that power prices will fall, once Mighty River Power, Meridian, and Genesis are partially-privatised?
Will investors really settle for a drop in returns on their share investments? Yeah, right, of course they will… *pfffft!!*
.
.
A very clear message. This banner will lead the march;
.
.
Valerie, addressing the crowd about the protocols of the march,
.
.
Two cars painted to promote the day of action. Using corporate-style vehicle-advertising – how cool is that?
.
.
Continued at: 27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Rua) – Where the march heads for Parliament grounds!
.
*
.
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Breakfasts, Brain-fades, and Bullshit
.
.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post - Key met spy candidate for breakfast
.
The best response amongst the comments posted was this one, in response to a right winger trying to deflect on to Shearer and Norman,
.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post - IBID
.
Brilliant reposte.
’nuff said.
.
.
= fs =
Blogger lays complaint with Commerce Commission
.
.
As of today, 1 April 2013, this blogger has laid a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding National minister’s questionable dealings with Rio Tinto and proposed subsidies for electricity prices,
.
Your details
- First Name: Frank
- Last Name: Macskasy
- Email: fmacskasy@gmail.com
Your address
Your complaint
- Business you are complaining about: New Zealand Government
- Street: Molesworth St
- Suburb: Thorndon
- City/Region: Wellington
- Post code: 6160
- Business Contact Number/ Mobile number: (4) 817 9999
Description of complaint
What happened?
Tony Ryall has recently announced that the NZ Government is intervening directly in negotiations between Meridian Energy and Rio Tinto (which is 80% owner of Tiwai Aluminium Smelter).Mr Ryall has said,
“With this in mind, the Government has been in contact with Pacific Aluminium’s international parent company Rio Tinto this week to discuss helping to bridge the gap in their positions over the short to medium term, if this could be of assistance in concluding an agreement.
“In the meantime, we understand Meridian’s existing contract with Pacific Aluminium remains in place at least until 1 January 2016 with significant financial and other obligations beyond that.”
Ryall added that “all relevant information – including about the smelter electricity contract – will be reflected in the Mighty River Power offer document which is currently being finalised”.
Source: NZ Herald, Govt steps in to sort out stalled Tiwai power deal ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10874174)
I therefore submit the following;
(1) This appears to be a prima facie case of the NZ Government manipulating the future stock price of Mighty River Power (and other state owned powercos), by offering a subsidy to Rio Tinto.
(2) This subsidy is not available to any other company nor individual.
(3) As such, I submit that the NZ Government’s intention to subsidise electricity that is provided to Rio Tinto is done with a view to reduce competition in the market.
Specifically, I draw the Commission’s attention to the Commerce Act 1986; sections 27, 30, and related clauses.
(4) Furthermore, I submit that if any other corporation, company, institution, or individual attempted such an act, that they would be deemed to be guilty of price fixing and manipulation of the market.
I await your response and thank you for your consideration of my complaint.
-Frank Macskasy
.
I will keep readers posted as to what, if anything results from this complaint.
.
*
.
Relevant sections
Section 27: Restrictive trade practices
.
.
Section 30: Price fixing
.
.
.
.
= fs =
Pre-register your disinterest in buying Mighty River shares
.
.
Not keen on buying shares in state assets you already own?
Are you wanting to pre-register your dis-interest?
Get in quick, now, and we’ll guarantee all pre-registrants 25% extra of NO shares at all!
This Facebook page is a great idea, and a simple, 5 second means by which you can indicate your disinterest in the sale of our state assets!
Get in Now! Get in quick!
.
Pre-register your disinterest in buying Mighty River shares!
.
Click the ‘Like’ Button to go to the Facebook Page!
Click the ‘Like’ Button to go to the Facebook Page!
.
.
(And don’t forget to share this with your friends, family, workmates, etc! The more the merrier!)
.
.
= fs =
392,000 New Zealanders send a clear message to John Key – Part Rua
.
.
Continued from: 392,000 New Zealanders send a clear message to John Key – Part Tahi
NZ, Wellington, 12 March 2013 – Ms Maniapoto Jackson introduced the first speaker, Greypower’s President, Roy Reid,
“So please welcome up the man who initiated this historical moment for us – the biggest citizens initiated referendum in [New Zealand's] history!”
.
Roy Reid
.
“As President of Greypower, I wish to inform you that Greypower has been opposed to the sale of state owned assets for a number of years. And this was reconfirmed at our annual general meeting two years ago. We advised all the political parties in this House that we were opposed to them selling any of our assets.
Our generation worked hard. We paid the taxes, to build our existing assets. They’re not for sale. They belong to all New Zealanders.
I sincerely thank all those who worked from one end of New Zealand to the other, to collect those 394,000 signatures just behind us. It’s the biggest petition ever presented to this House.
I pay tribute to our co-supporters, the New Zealand students association. For being involved with us, because it shows the country that we are united from the elderly to the younger generations……I’m sure that we’ve got enough valid signatures in those boxes to force the referendum. And [despite] no respect for what this government today says, the people of New Zealand will have their say.”
It as perhaps fitting that Mr Reid was given first opportunity to address the crowd. It was indeed his generation, and others before him, who sacrificed so much to build what we have in New Zealand today. And which a few greedy, short-sighted number of our fellow New Zealanders seem unable to comprehend that these assets do, indeed, belong to us all.
Not just to those with the cash to buy shares.
Our elected representatives certainly did not hesitate to show their agreement with Mr Reid’s comments,
.
.
Ms Maniapoto Jackson then invited the next speaker; ex-Vice President of the Auckland Students Association and Ngai Tahu; Arena Williams,
.
Arena Williams
.
Ms Williams greeted the crowd in Te Reo and her following message was short, blunt, and to the point,
“There’s one message that the government needs to take home from such an over-whelming support of this petition, and that’s Stop the asset sales and give New Zealanders a chance to have a say on this really important issue!”
.
The next invited guest-speaker was economist, Peter Conway, from the Council of Trade Unions,
.
Peter Conway
.
Mr Conway said,
“The Union movement is really proud to be here today at this amazing event and I just want to say, fantastic effort. Well done everybody! It’s awesome.
Now it might have been a little bit easier if for me to have the backing of a one million dollar advertising campaign, and maybe if we we’d been able to do it all on line. But I actually think that the fact that we went out there into communities where people work, live, and play and debated the issues; talked to people about it and got such a fantastic response, is really a testament to our democracy…
… So this is part of our democracy. And what we’re saying to the government; respect democracy… Let’s get this referendum up, and the Council of Trade Unions, on behalf of the union movement, is calling on the government to halt all asset sales and listen to the people.
Kia kaha, and thanks very much.”
Ms Maniapoto Jackson then welcomed the Leader of the Labour Party and MP for Mt Albert, David Shearer,
.
David Shearer
.
After expressing his welcome, Mr Shearer gave a brief thanks to the people, followed by a similarly brief message,
“Look, I just wanted to start by saying ‘thank you’, ‘thank you’ for all of those people who went out day after day, weekend after weekend, who stood on cold corners in the middle of winter and got people to sign this petition. Thank you to the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who care about this country so much that they put their signature to this petition.
This is about the transfer of an asset that we all own into the hands of a very few. That’s what it’s about, it’s about fairness. It [asset sales] is not fair.
This referendum will make the government listen to New Zealanders.
The fight will go on. It’s not finishing today. It will go on and we in the Labour Party will continue to fight this until 2014.
I wanted to say, as the boxes were being put up there, I was thinking that “Another Brick in the Wall” tune came into my mind, and I was thinking “We Don’t Want your Asset Sales Programme John Key”…
… Once again thank you for your effort, thank you for being here today. Kia Kaha, let’s take it to the government.”
Before Ms Maniapoto Jackson introduced the next speaker, Green Party co-leader Russell Norman, she briefly pointed out that the Parties behind her were unified, “with only the odd absence, which was duly noted“.
Mr Norman then addressed the people,
.
Russell Norman
.
Mr Norman then addressed the people,
“Today we stand here here on behalf of the millions of New Zealanders who are opposed to the sale of their assets. Today we stand here on behalf of the hundreds of thousands von New Zealanders who have signed this petition, behind us. Today we stand here on behalf of future generations who are relying on us to stand up for our country.
And that is why we have done this massive piece of work that you see behind us.
It has been incredibly hard work on behalf of thousands and thousands of people to go out and collect these signatures. It is despicable that the Prime Minister then says that the people who signed this petition were children and tourists! Prime Minister you do not know New Zealanders!
If the Prime Minister of New Zealand thinks that the people who signed this petition, the 400,000 people who signed this petitition, are not real New Zealanders, then he is in the wrong country…
… Real New Zealanders are the ones who worked and laboured to build those assets up so that we could inherit them. Real New Zealanders are the ones who will look after them so that we can pass them on to those who come after us…
… We have a mandate to keep our assets. The Prime Minister has no mandate to sell them.”
Ms Maniapoto Jackson then introduced Mr Peters, saying “if there’s anyone who can talk about justice and fairness, it’s Winston Peters“,
.
Winston Peters
.
“…Mr Key does does not have a mandate to make these sales. We all know the last election result and he relies upon the vote of Peter Dunne, who you know, with your money, at the last election had TV adverts saying that he would not do that. So there is no mandate.
We come now to the referendum, which is a chance for Mr Key to see whether he’s got the public backing and he doesn’t have even have the backing of one third of the National Party vote by every survey that you and I have seen.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s going to be difficult over the next few months on this issue, but I want to make something very, very, clear. Unless we make it clear to everyone who’s buying, that after the next election, whenever they fly the white flag, we intend to take back those shares at no greater price than they bought it for, then we will not be making the message very clear for Mr Key who governs for the few and very few.
Now your problem is, you don’t own a casino. Otherwise he’d be listening to you.
And you’re you’re not a Hobbit or some wide-boy from Hollywood, otherwise, he’d be listening to you.
No wonder he fell upon the defence of tourists, because that’s what Mr Key is; a CV Prime Minister, who will soon go, on issues like that…
… this is just the beginning. It is not the end.”
Next up, Ms Maniapoto Jackson introduced “the wonderful leader of the Mana Party, and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira“,
.
Hone Harawira
.
Mr Harawira injected a note of humour into the afternoon, and the crowd enjoyed his off-beat way of giving a speech,
“Look I’m going to do most of my korero in Maori, so the best way for you to support it is, every time I stop to take a breath, clap like crazy!”
The crowd obliged with enthusiasm, clapping and cheering each time he paused during his korero.
Ending his speech in Te Reo, he added,
“Now just for a short chant, a short chant, eh? Because Moana get’s all the the recording rights for this little gig, so mine is going to be a short little chant. So just follow after me. You ready?
“Aotearoa is not for sale!”
The crowd responded, “Aotearoa is not for sale“.
“C’mon, c’mon, now you can do better than that,” he ‘admonished the crowd with a smile.He repeated, “Aotearoa is not for sale!”
The responded boomed back, “AOTEAROA IS NOT FOR SALE!”
.
.
“Tell John Key to Go to hell!”
“TELL JOHN KEY TO GO TO HELL!”
And with that, Hone Harawira finished with a cheerful “Kia ora tatou!”.
As far as political speeches went, it was one of the shortest and more entertaining that this blogger has heard for a while. He certainly injects a bit of fun into a political event.
As an intriguing aside, this blogger managed to capture this picture of two Davids and a Damian. Their body language seemed to belie any suggestion of tension or ‘struggle between Messrs Cunliffe and Shearer.
.
(L-R) David Shearer, David Cunliffe, Damien O’Connor
.
Hmmmm… One has to wonder…
On a closing note, Ms Maniapoto Jackson ‘encouraged’ (dragged!) Hone Harawira back to the microphone to sing a duet – an old song from their protest days together,
.
.
And final posed-pics from Ms Maniapoto Jackson and Hone Harawira, after their singing-duet finale,
.
.
It’s interesting to compare the persona of Hone Harawira in the media, especially in his early days in Parliament – with the man who presents to the people, at public gatherings. There is a warmth and sincerity to the man that is almost wholly lacking in his MSM appearances – but a warmth and humour that is obvious when seeing him in person.
And from the Green Party caucus, this lovely snapshot. They deserve thepride they were feeling in being part of a movement to collect nearly 400,000 signatures,
.
.
In conclusion…
John Key’s casual dismissal of the petition, and the nearly 400,000 New Zealanders who signed it, was not a “good look”. It spoke volumes of Key’s persona; his arrogance; and his pettiness.
He could just as easily have accepted the petition as part of the democratic process and congratulated New Zealanders for participating. It would have made him look statesmanlike; stand above petty politics; and increased his mana.
Being derisive; suggesting that the signatures were from “children and tourists”; was offensive.
It was unnecessary and uncalled for.
It was childish.
It publicly revealed John Key’s innermost insecurities – as he knows that the people are not with him on this issue. It must be a debilitating, depressing feeling, knowing that three million New Zealanders are angrily opposed to what Key and his cronies are up to.
“Where is the love”, he may well ask?
“Where is the respect”, we ask him.
An open message to John Key…
The Prime Minister insists he has a “mandate” to part-privatise our state assets.
I disagree. More people voted for Parties opposing state asset sales than voted for Parties endorsing said sales.
John Key has a one seat “majority”, due in part to manipulations during the 2011 election, and MMP rules that prevented some Parties from gaining representation in the House. For example, the Conservative Party won twice as many votes as ACT – but gained no seats. (see: Mandates & Majorities)
That’s not a mandate, Mr Prime Minister – that’s an accident of circumstances.
Mr Key – if you truly insist that you have a mandate, then put it to the test. Hold off on the sharefloat for Mighty River Power. Let the people have their say in a referendum.
I, for one, will accept the verdict of a referendum, whatever the outcome. If the majority – even the slimmest margin over 50% – support your asset sale programme, you’ll not hear one more word from me on this issue ever again.
Are you willing to put your “mandate” to the test, Mr Prime Minister?
Are you willing to listen to, and abide by, the will of the People?
I am.
.
.
*
.
Additional
Radio NZ: Petitioners confident of asset sale referendum
Dominion Post: Government to ignore asset sales referendum
NZ Herald: Asset sales petition arrives at Parliament
TV3: PHOTOS: Asset sales petition presented
TVNZ: Petition against SOE sales delivered to Parliament
Newstalk ZB: Opposition MPs greet anti-asset sales petition
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
392,000 New Zealanders send a clear message to John Key – Part Tahi
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 12 March 2013 – Another beautiful sunny day with blue skies (apologies to farmers) was a perfect setting this afternoon in Wellington, when a couple of hundred marchers arrived on Parliament’s grounds, bearing 68 boxes, containing 392,000 signatures.
The referendum requires 304,000 valid signatures to precipitate a nationwide referendum. The 392,000 signatures gives a 22% ‘buffer’ against invalid signatures; people not on the electoral roll; duplicate signatures; and malicious attempts to undermine the petition.
There was a small number of people on Parliament’s grounds awaiting the march, amongst them tino rangatiratanga activists, Brenda and Fran,
.
.
At about 1pm, marchers arrived, bearing the boxes that contained a priceless treasure – signatures of 392,000 New Zealanders. Media flocked around them. This was an historical event,
.
.
They walked onto Parliament’s grounds to cheers and applause of those waiting,
.
.
On the steps to Parliament, more media and elected representatives from Opposition Parties were waiting. (Curiously, none from National, ACT, or United Future were in attendance. Their ‘invites’ must’ve been lost in the post?)
Politicians clapped as the marchers approached. Men, women, young, old, Maori, Pakeha, these were New Zealanders who believed that the People’s Assets were not to be stripped and flogged off by a handful of politicians,
.
.
Sixty eight marchers proudly carried a prized box each,
.
.
The boxes were carefully passed over a security barricade, to be stacked on the Parliamentary forecourt,
.
.
Meanwwhile, the crowd watched, as the stacking of boxes progressed,
.
.
The leadership of the Green and Labour Parties, with Brendan Horan (far left, standing beside Metiria Turei); former AUSA President, Arena Williams (standing beside David Shearer); Grey Power National President, Mr Roy Reid; Annette King; and (far right – no slur intended, Mr Conway) CTU Economist and Director of Policy, Peter Conway .
.
.
Mana Party leader, Hone Harawira, joined the Party leaders shortly afterward (NZ First lreader, Winston Peters was standing off-camera, to the left),
.
.
NZ First leader, Winston Peters, being interviewed by a MSM journalist,
.
.
A panoramic view of part of the assembled crowd,
.
.
Green MP, Jan Logie; NZ First leader, Winston Peters, and NZ First MP, Andrew Williams, at the stacked petition boxes. At this point, the invited guest-speakers were preparing themselves – and their notes – to address the crowd and media,
.
.
With a unique style and flair she has become reknowned for, Moana Maniapoto Jackson welcomed people to today’s presentation of the petition,
“We are celebrating people power…”
Coaching the crowd, to chime in with “Ohhhh yeahhhh” as the chorus, Ms Maniapoto Jackson launched into a short protest-style song. Her powerful voice belted out the words, making her microphone and speakers practically redundant, as she filled Parliament with her lyrical sounds,
.
.
“Hey, hey Mr John Key,
…
You say you’ve the mandate
We’re here to help,
it’s not too late,
People here are standing strong
a hundred thousand – can’t be wrong
We’re here to help you get back on track,
Let’s stop the sales,
Let’s pull it back.Crowd’s chorus, Ohhhhh Yeahhhhh!
All together now!
OHHHHH YEAHHHH!”
Ms Maniapoto Jackson then welcomed the first of “a long line of luminaries, that are positively glowing with energy and excitement as we deliver to the government a very strong call from New Zealanders.”
.
To be continued at: 392,000 New Zealanders send a clear message to John Key – Part Rua
.
*
.
Additional
Radio NZ: Petitioners confident of asset sale referendum
Dominion Post: Government to ignore asset sales referendum
NZ Herald: Asset sales petition arrives at Parliament
TV3: PHOTOS: Asset sales petition presented
TVNZ: Petition against SOE sales delivered to Parliament
Newstalk ZB: Opposition MPs greet anti-asset sales petition
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Regarding asset sales, mandates, and little green apples…
.
Regarding asset sales, mandates, and little green apples…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy < fmacskasy@gmail.com >
to: Dominion Post < letters@dompost.co.nz >
date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:14 AM
subject: Letter to the EditorThe Editor
DOMINION POSTSpeaking from his latest hat-wearing excursion to Brazil, Dear Leader John Key dismissed the petition calling for a referendum on the question of asset sales, by saying,
“…sure as little green apples [that] huge numbers of them are not bona fide names on the list” and would subsequently have to be struck off from the total number. (“Government to ignore asset sales referendum”, 12 March 2013)
That seems a curious thing to say.
How does Mr Key know “[that] huge numbers of them are not bona fide names on the list”? Does he have some inside knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to? Let’s hope that fundamentalist National and ACT supporters have not been deliberately undermining the petition.
That would indicate a gross contempt for the democratic process and for the views of New Zealanders.
Politicians bend over backwards to earn our vote at election time, and promise to “listen” to our concerns. Instead of just promising to listen to us every three years, Mr Key might consider doing likewise in-between elections.
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger,
“Frankly Speaking”
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy < fmacskasy@gmail.com >
to: Sunday Star Times < letters@star-times.co.nz >
date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM
subject: Letter to the editor
The Editor
Sunday Star Times
John Key keeps insisting that he has a “mandate” to partially-privatise our state assets. But a simple bit of arithmetic puts his assertion into serious doubt.
Votes from Parties endorsing asset sales:
National: 1,058,636
ACT: 23,889
United Future: 13,443
Total: 1,095,968Parties opposing asset sales:
Labour: 614,937
Greens: 247,372
NZ First: 147,544
Maori Party: 31,982
Mana: 24,168
Conservative Party:* 59,237
Total: 1,125,240Though the Conservative Party did not win seats because of MMP’s 5% and one-electorate seat thresholds, it still won twice as many votes as did ACT –
which did win a seat – with the help of some none-too-subtle machinations between John Key and John Banks over a very public cuppa tea.
The up-shot? 29,272 more voted for Parties opposing asset sales than voted for.
Something that Mr Key might bear in mind next time he tries to claim a mythical mandate to hock off our state owned enterprises.
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger,
“Frankly Speaking”
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
from: Frank M < fmacskasy@gmail.com >
to: NZ Herald < letters@herald.co.nz >
date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:22 AM
subject: Letters to the Editor
The Editor
NZ Herald
Dear Leader John Key is confident that he has a “mandate” to part-sell our state assets to private investors.
His dismissive response to 320,000 signatures on a petition, calling for a referendum on the issue, suggests otherwise.
Key knows full well that his “mandate” is mythical and based solely on two seats in Parliament – Epsom and Ohariu – that were won through some very dodgy back-room deals. That’s not a “mandate” – that’s manipulation.
I challenge him to put the decision to the people. If Key truly believes he has a real mandate, he won’t mind holding off on the sale of Mighty River Power, to test said “mandate”?
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger,
“Frankly Speaking”
[address and phone number supplied]
.
If you’re keen to add your voice(s) by writing letters to editors, feel free to use the email addresses above. Mention John Key by name, and his clipping-service will most likely dump it on his desk.
Happy writing!
[Note: Letters-to-editor require full name, residential address, and contact phone number to allow verification of authenticity.]
.
*
.
References
Government to ignore asset sales referendum (12 March 2013)
.
.
= fs =
A Clear Warning to Investors in SOEs…
.
.
The recent financial crisis and near-collapse of Solid Energy – one of the five, state owned enterprises planned for partial-privatisation – should serve as a warning for those investor-vultures circling to buy shares in any of the SOEs.
In fact, recent history regarding Air New Zealand, Kiwiwail, and (non-privatised) BNZ in 1991, are indicators that privatisation of state assets is not a guaranteed roadmap to wealth,
.
.
It is noteworthy that one of the cause of Air New Zealand’s collapse was it’s foolhardy buy-out of Australian airline, Ansett,
First, the decision by Air New Zealand to pay dividends and second, the decision to buy the second half of Ansett. Both moves turned out to be considerably more beneficial to the interests of Brierleys than those of Air New Zealand.
Take the Ansett purchase. In early 1999, Cushing announced that Air New Zealand was vetoing Singapore Airline’s bid to buy News Corp’s 50% of Ansett Holdings (Air New Zealand had held the other 50% of Ansett since September 1996). Instead, it decided to pay News Corp $A580 million and get 100% control.
It’s most likely true that Air New Zealand paid too much for the stake and that directors had too little information about Ansett’s financial and engineering state. These are well-aired opinions, but are secondary to the main question that should be asked: Why did Air New Zealand buy the second half of Ansett at all? It’s not just that it was hopelessly out of its depth buying an airline twice its size. It’s just hard to see any benefits – to Air New Zealand, that is.
Source: IBID
On top of that were big dividend demands from one of Air Zealand’s major shareholders, Brierley’s,
The at times cash-strapped investment company held between 30% and 47% of shares over the period so, based on the total dividend of $765 million, Brierley reaped an estimated $250 million to $380 million from the airline. And Air New Zealand’s decision to buy the second half of Ansett, cutting Singapore Airlines out of the deal, contributed to Brierleys being able to do its own deal with Singapore.
In April last year, two months after Air New Zealand bought Ansett, Brierleys sold Singapore Airlines all its Air New Zealand “B” shares for $285 million, or $3 a share. It was arguably the last exit option for Brierleys from these shares, and, apart from a spike at the end of last year, Air New Zealand shares have largely tracked downwards ever since – they were trading around 30 cents as Unlimited went to press.
Source: IBID
In other words, Air New Zealand had over-extended in unwise investments (as has Solid Energy), and was bled dry by rapacious demands for dividends (as did Faye Richwhite in NZ Rail in the early 1990s).
How does this relate to the upcoming partial-sale of Mighty River Power?
Recent revelations that Mighty River Power has shaky investments on Chile, should cause potential investors to pause for thought,
.
.
According to the TV3 story above, “Mighty River Power has spent $250 million at the geothermal plant in southern Chile, but has just written off $89 million as the investments struggle“.
To which Key responded casually,
“There is always risk.”
Dear Leader seems somewhat blase about investors’ risks? Of course he is. It’s not his money.
The Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit (COMU) reported,
Impairments
During the period, the Company recognised $91.4 million of impairments principally reflecting its investment in the GeoGlobal Partners I Fund (GGE Fund), and its greenfield explorations for potential developments in Chile and Germany.
This impairment followed higher than expected costs at the Tolhuaca project in Chile due to the worst winter in 40 years adversely affecting drilling performance and only one of the two wells having proven production capacity. The value of GGE’s investment at Weiheim in Germany, has been impacted by increased costs due to required changes in the drilling location following the 3D seismic surveys and delays from environmental court challenges which have been resolved post balance date.
The GGE Fund had not raised capital from other investors by the end of the 2012 and Mighty River Power made the decision not to invest further capital into the existing structure. Overall, the impairment charge of $88.9 million for the German and Tolhuaca assets and the management company of GGE LLC leaves a residual book value of $91.8 million.
Source: Mighty River Power LtdResults for Announcement to the Market
On top of Mighty River Power’s dodgy investment in Chile, New Zealand is now experiencing what is being called the worst drought in seven decades (see: North Island’s worst drought in 70 years). As Climate scientist Jim Salinger said about New Zealand’s current weather patterns continuing, and becoming similar to the Mediterranean,
“What it means is that if it just doesn’t rain for at least four months of the year, it means you have to bring in your water from elsewhere.”
Source: IBID
As all investors should bear in mind; most of our power generation is generated from hydro stations. Mighty River Power, especially, derives most of its electricity from eight hydro-electric stations on the Waikato River.
Mighty River Power CEO, Doug Heffernan has given a clear warning,
“Following the lower than average inflows into the Waikato catchment during the last quarter [to December 31], Mighty River ended the half year at just 69 per cent of historical average [hydro storage].”
And Equity analyst Phillip Anderson of Devon Funds stated,
“The same period last year they got really strong inflows, and this is the exact opposite . . .
In the second half of this reporting year they’re going to have to buy a lot more electricity to feed their customers, either on the spot market at a lot higher cost or use their [Southdown] gas plant.
We expect the second half of this year is going to be a lot tougher for them, they should get their margins squeezed if that all plays out.”
Source: Parched Waikato could hit Mighty River Power
The equation is blindingly simple,
Less rain = less water = less electricity generation
The question that begs to be asked is; where does the risk of investing in SOEs fall – private investors, or the State?
The answer I submit to the reader is, that like Air New Zealand, it will be private investors who bear the brunt of all risk. The State will simply pick up the pieces, buying up shares at bargain basement prices, should anything go wrong.
Electricity generators like Mighty River Power will simply never be allowed to fail. Had the Labour government in 2001 allowed Air New Zealand to collapse, the fall-out to the rest of the reconomy would have been too horrendous to contemplate, and flow-on effects to other businesses (eg; exporters and tourism) and the economy would have been worse than any bail-out.
But any bailout will involve a massive loss for investors, as their share-value plummets. Again, Air New Zealand was an example to us all.
As the impact of climate change creates more uncertainly for our state power companies, investors need to think carefully before committing one single dollar toward buying shares,
“Do I really want to bear all the risk?”
Those who lost out on their investments in Air New Zealand in the 1990s will probably answer,
“No.”
.
*
.
References
The Air New Zealand crash (1 November 2001)
A history of bailouts (7 April 2011)
Foreigners important for SOE sell-downs: Treasury (30 June 2011)
No law stopping foreign investors (16 Dec 2011)
Parched Waikato could hit Mighty River Power (22 Feb 2013)
Mighty River Power shares float mid-May (4 March 2013)
Taking the plunge in Mighty River (9 March 2013)
Key struggles to push Chilean investments (9 March 2013)
North Island’s worst drought in 70 years (10 March 2013)
Other blogs
Seemorerocks: An Appeal for a New Zealand Risk Assessment
.
.
= fs =
Labour, Greens, NZ First, & Mana – A Bright Idea with electricity!
|
|
What?
A part of me is mightily pissed off at Labour.
Like, really ticked off.
From 2000 to 2008, they had ample opportunity to safeguard state assets and remove them from any prospect of privatisation by ideologically-driven, rightwing elements in our political system.
But perhaps, I suspect that most folk – including the Left - had believed that privatisation had been abandoned by National as an ideological dead-end experiment, leading nowhere except eventual foreign ownership and profits remitted to offshore investors. Which, as a consequence, worsened our already shabby Balance of Payments deficit.
More importantly, we had every right to expect that National believed that asset sales would be a sure-fire way of losing an election.
However, someone – some bright, zealous, political strategist working in some back-room somewhere – must’ve come across a “cunning plan” to make asset sales palatable to at least half the voters.
That’s all the Nats needed; 50% of voters.
Why?
To pay for tax cuts in 2009 and 2010. Those tax cuts dug a $2 billion-plus hole in government revenue (see: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting, see: Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b). The shortfall could only be made up by borrowing more – or selling something. National opted for the latter.
How?
Post 2011 Election, has demonstrated that National has not changed it’s free-market stripes. Given an opportunity, they would hock off as much of the country as possible. For “the good of the nation”, you understand.
At the 2011 election, National were handed that opportunity, on a gold plate*, by a voting public who seemed to be distracted by smoking magic mushrooms. Whilst voters expressed disdain at National’s privatisation – they voted National regardless.
(Call me old fashioned, but I tend not to vote for things I disagree with.)
Go figure.
Note that I said “they voted National” – they didn’t vote for National. It may seem as if I’m splitting hairs on a molecular level – but bear with me.
Consider the facts;
- 1. In 2011, National won 1,058,638 votes – or 47.31% of votes cast. That gave them 59 seats.
- 2. The 2011 election was the lowest voter turn-out (74.21%) since 1887.
- 3. Whilst Labour’s vote dropped from 2008 to 2011, overall the anti-asset sale bloc gained more popular votes in 2011 than the pro-sale bloc,
| National , ACT, United Future Party Votes | Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, Mana, and Conservative Party votes |
|
National – 1,058,636
|
Labour – 614,937 |
|
ACT – 23,889
|
Greens – 247,372 |
|
United Future – 13,443
|
NZ First – 147,544 |
|
Maori Party – 31,982
|
|
|
Mana – 24,168
|
|
|
Conservative Party* – 59,237
|
|
|
TOTAL – 1,095,968 |
Total – 1,125,240 |
* Whilst the Conservative gained no seats in Parliament (because of the 5% threshold), their numbers are included because they gained over double the electoral-support for ACT.
In effect, Key could claim an mythical “mandate” simply because the MMP rules in 2011 gave ACT a seat, but no representation for the Conservatives – even though support for the latter was double that of ACT.
- 4. Voting patterns are reflected in polls which consistantly show public opinion opposed to asset sales. Generally, the figure is around two thirds opposed and less than a third supporting. (see: Most of us oppose selling NZ)
In fact, this blogger cannot find any reputable poll favouring National’s privatisation programme.
However, the harsh reality is that, for politicians, unless faced by a populist revolt and tens of thousands taking to the streets (see: Huge protest says no to mining on conservation land) , the only numbers that really count are bums-on-seats. Parliamentary seats.
Political machinations in Epsom and Ohariu gave Key the two seat Parliamentary majority he needed, and that’s what counts as a “mandate”. For the Nats, that’s the end-of-story.
Who?
As Dear Leader has oft been quoted,
”On the mixed-ownership model debate, the Government has been very clear about its intentions since well before the 2011 election.” – John Key, 24 June 2012 (see: Most of us oppose selling NZ)
Thus far, 200,000 have pre-registered (see: Mighty River pre-registrations top 200,000) – which, whilst a sizeable number, is still only around five percent of those who voted for National in 2011. And I suspect many are pre-registering for a variety of reasons,
- self interested naked greed
- a desire to keep shares in local hands
- and a few bogus pre-registrations to subvert the process (a surreptitiously organised covert resistance? You might say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment)
The 200,000 pre-reguistrations is still dwarfed by signaturies to the petition, which is fast approaching 400,000 (see: Asset sales referendum likely)
So, did all 1,058,638 voters who voted National in 2011 also endorse asset sales, either in whole or partial?
The answer is a clear no. In a poll just over a year ago (see: Poll shows asset sales unpopular), around 32% – about one third – of National supporters disapproved of asset sales.
That’s 338,764 voters who opposed asset sales who ticked the box for National in 2011, despite knowing full well that Key was promising partial floats on Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy (now in doubt), and a further sell-down of Air New Zealand.
338,764 people who voted for something they didn’t want.
As Marcus Lush said on Radiolive on 28 February this year (2013),
.
[click on image to access Radiolive link]
.
Good question.
The answer, I think, can be distilled down into two categories of voters.
- The first group simply either didn’t taken notice of the asset sales campaign, or, more likely did not believe that Key would go ahead with the policy. They may even have thought that Key’s coalition ally(ies), United Future and/or the Maori Party, would stop the sales from proceeding. There was a kind of “in denial” mentality going on here.
- The second group is perhaps more complex. Whilst they don’t support asset sales per se, they perhaps believed National Party rhetoric that shares would remain in New Zealand hands. Considering the consequences of Contact Energy’s privatisation – where the majority of shares are now in Australian hands – this would seem to be a forlorn hope.
Having spoken with National Party voters belonging to Group 1, I believe that asset sales will impact to varying degrees on National’s support at the next election. Having woken up to the fact that Key has no intention of backing away from sales, there are 300,000 National voters who may think twice before voting National again.
Expect National to drop in the next few polls following the sale of Mighty River Power.
However, unless something totally unanticipated happens between now and May, the partial sale of Mighty River Power will probably proceed. Followed by Genesis and Meridian. Followed by hefty power price increases if past history is anything to go by.
Where (to from here?)
NZ First’s Winston Peters has promised that any government he is part of will buy back state assets. (Which, by the way, if he’s not telling lies, means that any coalition deal with the Nats is off the table. I’m not holding my breath on this. The 1996 election is still fresh in my mind.)
On 4 March this year (2013), Peters announced,
“New Zealand First will use its influence on the next coalition Government to buy back our state-owned power companies which are being flogged off by National and we are committed to buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser.”
Source: One More Quisling Moment from Key
This is do-able. Especially if NZ Superannuation funds are used, which would not impact or have any bearing on a new Government’s books.
By announcing that the shares would be re-purchased “at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser” – Peters is effectively putting all purchasers on notice: expect to incur a loss if you buy into National’s thieving (and let’s be clear – selling goods that don’t belong to you is theft) programme.
And a year earlier, in March 2012, Hone Harawira had promised the same in an open letter to investors,
“So today I think it only proper to send a warning to overseas investors – steer clear of any share offer in the above SOE’s. The purchase of these shares is likely to see you caught up in legal battles and direct action from citizens determined to protect their own interests, both of which will be lengthy and costly and have an adverse impact on the value of your investment.
As the leader of the MANA Movement and Member of the New Zealand House of Representatives, I wish to advise that MANA is opposed to the privatisation of state assets and will strongly argue for any shares sold to overseas investors to be returned to New Zealand hands.”
Source: Hone Harawira: Open letter to overseas investors
By contrast, in an attempt to appear “fiscally responsible” to Middle Class voters, Labour and the Greens were luke-warm, at best.
Green co-leader, Russel Norman said,
“We just can’t make the promise that Winston is making. We will do whatever we can, but it is two years away, the books are getting into a terrible mess because of National, and closer to the time we will make an announcement but at the moment we can’t.”
Source: Peters: Use super funds to buy back state assets
And Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove effectively went, ‘ditto’,
“… I can’t commit to an open-ended fiscal envelope. That would be fiscally irresponsible in my view.”
Source: IBID
Which is all pretty timid stuff.
This, my fellow New Zealanders, is why the Centre-Left lost the 2011 Election: no boldness in vision; no measurable difference to the Nats; and no unshakeable courage of their/our convictions.
All that Labour and the Greens said was “no” to asset sales.
And when Cunliffe suggested that a future Labour-led government would re-nationalise these SOEs – he was firmly slapped down by his Party.
On 4 December 2011,
“I don’t stand for a paler shade of blue, and I want to look down the barrel and say this: if the Government is going to sell off precious state assets then we would not rule out re-nationalising some of them. And people need to be aware of that regulatory risk.”
When asked by host Guyon Espiner whether he would buy them back, Mr Cunliffe replied “we would look very hard [at buying them back].” - Source
On 5 December 2011,
Labour leadership aspirant David Cunliffe has moved to clarify his position on the buyback of state assets.
He believed comments he made in a weekend interview, where he didn’t rule out buying back partially privatised SOE’s, had been misinterpreted.
Mr Cunliffe said it was not an explicit promise to buy back all shareholdings National may sell. - Source
That’s not “manning the barricades” stuff – that’s an open retreat in the face of a remorseless enemy.
Which, in turn, emboldened National to openly mock and taunt the Labour Opposition, seven months later,
” Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) : I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We are still waiting, this week, for the Labour Party to commit to buying back the shares of the 49 percent of the energy companies that the Government is planning to sell, mainly to New Zealanders. New Zealand First has made that undertaking. New Zealand First has shown that the Labour Party has persuaded New Zealand First that its arguments are so strong, New Zealand First should go and buy them back if it has a role in a future Government. But the Labour Party has not been able to persuade itself. Labour members have been in the Chamber arguing, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, that these proposed share offers are fiscally irresponsible, economic nonsense, and a sell-out to foreigners, but they are not so fiscally irresponsible that they are going to buy them back. They are not such a sell-out to foreigners that they are going to buy them back. They are not such an economic nonsense that they are going to buy them back.” – Source
At a time when Labour should be tearing strips of National and setting their own counter-agenda – we’re getting precious little of that. Instead, the agenda is being set by Key and his cronies with bugger-all opposition. The Greens and NZ First have scored more ‘hits’ against the Nats than Labour.
On top of that, the Greens have become the “go to” opposition Party, for criticism of National policies. If you doubt me, check out the next 6pm TV news bulletin. Which opposition party spokesperson is interviewed? Keep tabs over a few night. You’ll quickly see what I mean.
So, what options does Labour have?
It has two options;
- Carry on with a conservative course. There is a 50/50 chance it will lead the next government, with perhaps a one or two seat majority, consisting of Labour/Greens/Mana/NZ first.
- Strike out with a strategy of aggressive and bold announcements of initiatives. Announce;
- radical policies that are a departure from neo-liberalism and declare that the Great Neo-liberal Experiment is dead; “we come to bury the bastard, not praise him”.
- focus on the message that the 30 year experiment in neo-liberalism has failed utterly, and is one reason we’re driving our young people to Australia
- a policy that all state assets will be re-purchased at cost-price (as a coalition deal with NZ First)
- a list of National policies that will be ruthlessly reviewed and dumped (eg, the Hobbit Law)
- a focus on job creation; attacking the root causes of child poverty; and a committment for decent housing for all New Zealanders
- a full review of the tax system, with a plan to reduce (or eliminate gst) and replaced with a comprehensive Capital Gains Tax; Financial Transactions Tax; and other non-income related taxes
- Comprehensive food-in-schools programmes
- looking at how our Scandinavian and Nordic cuzzies are running their economies/societies
- cheaper education for our kids
- a conversation with New Zealanders as to what kind of society we want to live in – and are we willing to pay for it and set goals to achieve it?
- etc, etc.
As part of Option 2, I have one further Bright Idea…
A Libertarian acquaintaince and I were chatting one evening at ‘Backbenches’ (prior to it catching fire – and no, our conversation wasn’t that heated) . We were talking about the three state owned power companies.
He asked me; why should there be three state owned companies; all producing the same service; at roughly the same costs and prices – have three sets of management; CEOs; offices; accounting systems; staff; etc? Wouldn’t it make more sense to combine the three and pass the savings onto consumers?
Damn it, he was right. What is the point of having three state owned electricity companies?
One could do the same job – and cheaper.
Just as we had the old ECNZ, prior to Max Bradford’s so-called “reforms” in the late 1990s. At the time, Mr Bradford promised cheaper electricity through competition. Instead, power prices have doubled sinced the start of the century. (see: The 30-year power price hike , see: Power prices over decade)
“Ministry of Economic Development (MED) statistics show average power prices rose from 13.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on average in May 2001 to 26 cents in May 2011.” - Source
The problem is not just to re-nationalise our electricity companies.
The next problem is what do we do with them?
How do we make them socially responsive to domestic consumers as well as efficient?
Do we re-combine Mighty River Power, Genesis, and Meridian back into one single unit, a new ECNZ?
Do we ensure that there are Board members elected to a new ECNZ whose constituents are domestic users? Perhaps any such Board should have directly-elected representation?
Do we entrench a new, state owned ECNZ in legislation so it’s future is protected from predatory governments seeking either maximum returns (ie, price gouging) or to privatise it?
Could a new ECNZ afford to offer each domestic household their first 300kwh per month, free, as has been suggested by Victoria University researcher, Geoff Bertram? (see: Call for free power )
These are the issues which the Opposition should be focused on.
And thus far, we’ve not heard much from them.
If Labour-Greens-NZ First are serious about being an alternative government, then by the gods, they should be serious about giving us that alternative.
Conclusion
When National started campaigning in the 2008 election, it began two years in advance with a series of aggressive policies. It was acting like a Government-in-Waiting.
By contrast, Labour and the other parties are an Opposition-in-Waiting. They are timidly watching and waiting for the public love affair with Key to wear off, and for National to f**k up.
Well, news flash guys. That doesn’t seem to be working too well. The Nats have been excoriated with scandal after scandal last year and this year; unemployment rising; Mainzeal and Solid Energy collapsing – and the Nats are still high in the polls?!
My message to Labour, Greens, NZ first, and Mana;
If you want the voting public to take notice of you, you have to give them something that’ll make them notice you.
Be bold.
Be aggressive.
Offer alternatives.
Offer practical solutions.
Give the public a vision.
And at all times, work together.
If you don’t give the public an alternative, why should they look away from National?
Give the people of New Zealand an alternative, better way of living – and they will look at you.
But not until then.
.
*
.
(* Plate will soon be auctioned on Trademe.)
Previous Blogposts
Politics through a crystal ball, palmistry, or chicken entrails?
History Lesson – Tahi – Electricity Sector “reforms”
Additional
Cunliffe: buy back any sold assets
Cunliffe not promising to buy back assets
Parliament: Hansards – Wednesday, 20 June 2012, Bill English on Asset Sales
More heat in power struggle as prices go up
Government in $112b barney over accounting
Electricity prices tipped to rise steeply
Heavy traffic hits Mighty River Power share site
One More Quisling Moment from Key
Other blogs
MANA threaten overseas investors not to buy assets – Bloomberg pick up on the story
.
.
= fm =
How to sabotage the asset sales…
.
Something I blogged on 25 June 2012, and now more appropriate than ever…
.
.
On last weekends’ (23/24 June 2012) “The Nation“, the issue of asset sales was discussed with NZ First leader, Winston Peters; Green Party MP, Gareth Hughes; and Labour MP, Clayton Cosgrove,
.
.
Whilst all three parties are staunchly opposed to state asset sales, NZ First leader, Winston Peters went one step further, promising that his Party would buy back the assets.
Gareth Hughes and Clayton Cosgrove were luke-warm on the idea, quite rightly stating that there were simply too many variables involved in committing to a buy-back two and a half years out from the next election. (And Peters never followed through on his election pledge in 1996 to buy back NZ Forestry – “to hand back the envelope”, as he put it - after National had privatised it.) There was simply no way of knowing what state National would leave the economy.
Considering National’s tragically incompetant economic mismanagement thus far, the outlook for New Zealand is not good. We can look forward to more of the usual,
- More migration to Australia
- More low growth
- More high unemployment
- More deficits
- More skewed taxation/investment policies
- Still more deficits
- More cuts to state services
- And did I mention more deficits?
By 2014, National will have frittered away most (if not all) of the proceeds from the sale of Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand.
In such an environment, it is difficult to sound plausible when promising to buy back multi-billion dollar corporations.
Not to be thwarted, Peters replied to a question by Rachel Smalley, stating adamantly,
” The market needs to know that Winston Peters and a future government is going to take back those assets. By that I mean pay no greater price than their first offering price. This is, if they transfer to seven or eight people, it doesn’t matter, we’ll pay the first price or less. “
Bold words.
It remains to be seen if Peters will carry out that threat – especially if a number of his shareholders are retired Kiwi superannuitants?
When further questioned by Rachel Smalley, Peters offered specific ideas how a buy-back might be funded,
” Why can’t we borrow from the super fund, for example? And pay that back over time? And why can’t we borrow from Kiwisaver for example, and pay that back over time…”
The answer is that governments are sovereign and can make whatever laws they deem fit. That includes buying back assets at market value; at original sale price; or simple expropriation without compensation. (The latter would probably be unacceptable to 99% of New Zealanders and would play havoc with our economy.)
Peters is correct; funding per se is not an issue. In fact, money could be borrowed from any number of sources, including overseas lenders. The gains from all five SOEs – especially the power companies – would outweigh the cost of any borrowings.
Eg,
- Cost of borrowing from overseas: 2% interest
- Returns from SOEs: 17%
- Profit to NZ: 15%
We make on the deal.
The question is, can an incoming Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana government accomplish such a plan?
Should such a radical policy be presented to the public at an election, the National Party would go into Warp Drive with a mass panic-attack.
But it’s not National that would be panicked.
It would be National going hard-out to panic the public.
National’s scare-campaign would promise the voters economic collapse; investors deserting the country; a crashed share-market; cows drying up; a plague of locusts; the Waikato River turning to blood; hordes of zombie-dead rising up…
And as we all know, most low-information voters are highly susceptible to such fear-campaigns. The result would be predictable:
.
.
But let’s try that again…
A more plausible scenario would have the leadership of Labour, NZ First, the Greens, and Mana, meeting at a secluded retreat for a high-level, cross-party strategy conference.
At the conclusion of said conference, the Leaders emerge, with an “understanding”, of recognising each others’ differing policies,
- Winston Peters presents a plan to the public, promoting NZF policy to buy-back the five SOEs. As per his original proposals, all shares will be repurchased at original offer-price.
- The Mana Party buy-in to NZ First’s plan and pledge their support.
- Labour and the Greens release the joint-Party declaration stating that whilst they do not pledge support to NZ First/Mana’s proposal – neither do they discount it. At this point, say Labour and the Greens, all options are on the table.
That scenario creates considerable uncertainty and anxiety in the minds of potential share-purchasers. Whilst they know that they will be recompensed in any buy-back scheme – they are effectively stymied in on-selling the shares for gain. Because no new investor in their right mind would want to buy shares that (a) probably no one else will want to buy and (b) once the buy-back begins, they would lose out.
Eg; Peter buys 1,000 shares at original offer price of $2 per share. Cost to Peter: $2,000.
Peter then on-sells shares to Paul at $2.50 per share. Cost to Paul: $2,500. Profit to Peter: $500.
Paul then cannot on-sell his shares – no one else is buying. Once elected, a new centre-left government implements a buy back of shares at original offer-price @ $2 per share. Price paid to Paul: $2,000. Loss to Paul: $500.
Such a strategy is high-stakes politics at it’s riskiest. Even if Labour and the Greens do not commit to a specific buy-back plan, and “left their options open” - would the public wear it?
The certainty in any such grand strategy is that the asset sale would be effectively sabotaged. No individual or corporate buyer would want to become involved in this kind of uncertainty.
Of less certainty is how the public would perceive a situation (even if Labour and the Greens remained staunchly adamant that they were not committed to any buy-back plan) of political Parties engaging in such a deliberate scheme of de-stabilisation of a current government’s policies.
The asset sales programme would most likely fail, for sure.
But at what cost? Labour and the centre-left losing the next election?
We may well end up winning the war to save our SOEs – but end up a casualty of the battle.
.
.
.
*
.
Related Blog posts
Additional
Asset sales remain unpopular for NZers
.
.
= fs =
319 million reasons not to part-privatise our power companies
.
.
.
There are at least 319 million reason why it is sheer madness for National to be considering part-privatisation of state-owned power companies,
.
.
.
Acknowledgement for above media reports: Radio New Zealand
.
The half year (not even a fullyear!) profit for the above three power SOEs is: $319.5 million.
Combined dividends paid the the government will be: $224 million.
If 49% of all three SOEs is sold to private investors, the State (ie, You and Me) will lose out on approximatelt $110 million.
That will be $110 going into bank accounts of institutional investors, or the pockets of wealthy New Zealanders with sufficient income to buy shares.
It will mean a drop in government income.
Worse still, going by historic events in the late 1990s when the ECNZ (Electricity Corporatrion of NZ) was split up, and the newly formed Contact Energy was split off and fully privatised, power prices will continue to skyrocket,
.
National-led government – NZPA – 12 May 1999
.
Privatisation will not mean competition resulting in cheaper power prices any more than competing fuel companies are giving us cheaper petrol prices.
In fact, as Economics Professor, Geoff Bertram said on 13 February 2013, at an anti-asset sales rally in Wellington,
.
“… It’s my view that probably the most important political consequence of the part-privatisation of SOEs is to place private investors in those enterprises and thereby immunise them against possible future policy that might reduce their value.
And since I think an important part of an improved government policy would indeed reduce their value, I am opposed to the asset sales…
…The companies have a very high valuation. The reason why they have a very high valuation is that they have successfully participated in a long-running rort to extract cash from residential electricity consumers by the inexorable driving up of prices of electricity.
That rort, has been possible, because government policy has allowed and has indeed supported the emergeance of a cartel of five, large, vertically-integrated, generator-retailers – three of whom are SOEs – which have been able to operate without any effective regulation, at the expense of consumers who were too vulnerable to protect their interests against price hikes.
And if you looked at the tracks of electricity prices over the last 20, 30 years you will have noticed that large industry has protected itself very successfully; commercial electricity buyers have done fine; residential who are the dis-organised, unrepresented, undefended, captive group of customers have seen their prices go up in real terms 100% since 1986.
And the main consequence of the electricity reforms has indeed been that doubling of the cost of electricity to ordinary households.
That’s a major cause of energy poverty; it’s been an important part in the growing inequality of income and wealth in this country; and it’s something that a socially responsible government would, in my view, be taking serious action to reverse.”
Geoff Bertram continued,
“Just to put that doubling of the residential price in context. New Zealand’s pretty much on it’s own in the OECD and if you look at the figures for other countries around the OECD, from 1986 to the present, the price of electricity to residential consumers in OECD Europe, in Australia, and in the United Kingdom, is still the same as it was in 1986. In the United States, Japan, and France, prices are down 25% , compared to where they were in 1986, in real terms. In South Korea they’re down 50%, compared to where they were in 1986.
New Zealand is the only only OECD country that has gone out there and driven up electricity prices 50%. We’re also pretty much the only country that doesn’t have a regulator in place, and where government doesn’t have any particular social policy relating to the pricing of essential services to the public.”
Prof Bertram explained,
“And here’s how it works.
You take a bunch of assets with a given value, and you look at the existing price, to consumers of the product, and you say “well look, we can get the price up”; so you project that higher price; you capitalise that; and then if you can get the price up the asset will be worth more; so then you re-value the asset; and then you go and use the higher value of the asset to justify raising the prices, and then you repeat.
And this is the circular process which has been going on in New Zealand now, in electricity, for more than a decade. It is completely legal under New Zealand law.
It is not illegal to profiteer or to gauge captive customers in this country. [In] very few countries is that true.
And it’s consistant with New Zealand’s generally accepted accounting practice which basically tells you that there’s a rotteness at the core of accounting practices in this country.”
And added this shocking insight,
“Here’s the problem. Electricity was once an essential service provided to households at the lowest price, consistent with covering the industry’s costs.
Since 1986 the sector has been corporatised and part-privatised, and it’s pricing has been driven by the quest for profit by giant companies that have the market power to gouge their consumers.
As the owner of three of those companies, the New Zealand government has therefore become a predator. And now the Treasury wants to cash in on that rort by selling out half the government’s stake.
What that means in terms of the options for the future for government to turn around and come back from the predator model and return to a social service approach for energy supply, is being closed off.”
Concluding with,
“But if you want to deal with energy poverty and get kids out of hospitals with asthma and other respiratory diseases and so on, one of the really good things that you can do is get cheap energy into New Zealand households and that would be sustainable on the basis of the current government owned assets.
About 300 kwh free. [But if] you sell Mighty River and what’s feasible comes down to 200 [kwh]. You sell Genesis and what’s feasible comes down to 100 [kwh]. You sell Meridian and it’s gone…
What I’m saying is the contract that supplies the Rio Tinto smelter down at Bluff, the old Comalco contract, is the contract New Zealand households should have had from the start.
And it still could be done.”
See previous blogpost: Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part rua)
As Radio NZ reported on 21 February,
“Electricity prices paid by Mighty River customers rose 2% over the period while costs fell 22%.”
See: Mighty River Power profit quadruples
Which leads us to these points to consider,
- Despite a glut of electricity, prices continue to rise. There is price-gouging going on by all power companies, whether State Owned or by privately-owned Contact Energy. There is no competitive force driving prices down. There is no indication that part-privatisation will create any competition.
- At least state ownership means that most electricity profits stay in New Zealand and contribute to the State, to pay for health, education, roading, etc. However, one wonders if this sort of punitive, indirect-taxation, on low income families is fair, whilst more affluent households can afford insulaion, solar power, and other energy-saving strategies.
- As Prof Bertram maintains, partial privation will most likely close off future progessive governments’ abilities to reform the electricity industry and return to a social service approach.
See also previous related blogpost – with Max Bradford’s response on this issue: History Lesson – Tahi – Electricity Sector “reforms”
Meanwhile, some of our past political leaders are waking up to the realities of historical state asset privatisations,
.
See: Bolger – Telecom sale a mistake
.
Better late than never?
Nah. Better now than later.
These mistakes are too expensive and we all end up paying.
.
.
= fs =
Nothing quite sez Rich Man’s Conference than this event
.
.
As reported on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘ this morning (22 February), ACT’s 2013 Annual Conference kicks off today.
Part of the Conference will be held on Alan Gibb’s farm-estate at Kaukapakapa, about 50kms north of Auckland,
.
.
.
An Annual Conference on an isolated, private property, belong to one of New Zealand’s richest men; Alan Gibbs.
Gibbs – worth an estimated $420 million according to a NBR report - spends most of his time in London. This doesn’t seem to stop him from influencing politics in this country.
Holding a conference on Gibbs’ private property, away from any urban centre does hold several benefits.
Firstly, attendees can marvel and appreciate Gibbs’ very private art collection,
.
.
And secondly, there’s a low-to-zero risk of pesky demonstrators turning up, protesting at the neo-liberal policies that have been in effect for 30 years.
After all, having a bunch of poor folk turning up to a predominantly Rich White Men’s (there appear to be no women or Maori speakers at the Conference) political party, to protest policies which have increased poverty and widened the income/wealth gap, is probably not a good look.
The question I always ask myself, though is, are they locking us out? Or are we locking them in?
Meanwhile, the sell-off of the people’s assets to wealthy men like Alan Gibbs, and others like him (aka, the One Percenters), continues,
.
.
*
.
References
Radio NZ audio report: ACT meets at weekend for annual conference
.
.
= fs =
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part toru)
.
.
Continued from:
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part rua)
NZ, Wellington, 13 February 2013 – At this point, there was some light entertainment – firstly from this chap,
.
.
“John Key” – first tried to convince the crowd that he’s really a “nice guy”. The response from the crowd was anything but ‘understanding’.
“John Key” then sang his now-famous version of the New Zealand anthem, which he said was now “partially privatised” – so minus every third or fourth word. Thwe song made bugger-all sense – much like asset sales themselves.
The anthem was missing the last line, which he said, had been “sold in it’s entirety, including the word ‘New Zealand’.
After “John Key” was ‘helped’ off the stage with accompanying boos and cat-calls, Energy campaigner, Molly Melhuish took the microphone.
Ms Melhuish spoke for Greypower. Like Geoff Bertram, she is also deeply knowledgeable about all facets of the energy industry, including pricing systems used for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
As always, listeners leave a talk by Ms Melhuish with a greater knowledge and insights into the electricity industry in our country,
.
.
Ms Melhuish first explained a bit of the background of the “Keep our Assets” campaign,
“… Greypower was essentially asked to front this campaign, and we said at the first strategic meeting of the ‘Keep our Assets’ campaign that we wanted to co-front it with the youth, so we found a youth group, it was the University Students Association.
Because we believe this campaign is about those older people. Surprisingly many of our members were involved in building those assets. We said they’re ours, we want to keep them.
But we speak to our grand-children and our grand-children recognise… they just don’t want them sold. So the Greypower group board as a group, supported this ‘Keep our Assets’ campaign, all seven zones.
There are a small number of individuals in our meetings who really believed John Key when he said ‘we have to sell the assets so we can re-pay the debts’. Geoff [Bertram] told you how wrong that is, but people are conservative, want to be safe, and many, or most of the people who still say ‘we have to sell the asssets’ do so because they believed [John Key]. John Key is a show pony, he’s… telling the story told to him by others. He’s a used car salesman. Would you buy a used car off that guy? I wouldn’t.”
“…Just yesterday afternoon, I spoke to Mana Tawa… The very very first question I asked was ‘Why can’t we have solar power on our houses? Our family in the U.K., you know, they got money to put photo-voltaics [on our roofs] and they were able to pay it off on our power bills. She said, ‘Why can’t we have that?”
We could, but we have to vote for it.
We won’t under this administration.
Another one said, when I bought my place in a retuirement village in Porirua, we were promised lower bills. We are now paying more for our little retirement village than I paid for a four bedroom house.
So you get a captive consumer and they can hike power bills not twice, but four times!
Greypower now has a policy that says energy leglislation must say [that] all household energy and especially electricity must be provided in a manner that’s fair, sustainable, efficient, and reliable. That was the law in 2001- Labour changed the law to make that. [But] National government took away “fair and sustainable” [from legislation]. That is wrong.
What to do about it? Change the government!
The only way you will get a change is to change the government! Vote for it! Peter Love told you that in the first speech; vote for change. Greypower sez vote for change. That’s your job – We Greypower can support it but it is your job to vote for change.”
And she’s right. The only way we can effect change is by the ballot in the Voting Booth. Deciding not to vote because of some half-arsed cliche about “all politicians being the same” is defeatist garbage. It is craven surrender to forces who welcome people giving away their vote because vested interests have persuaded you that “change is not possible”.
Change is possible. But not when cynicism guides your decisions.
Molly Melhuish was followed by Aotearoa Not For Sale activist, Frances, who spoke of her own ‘journey’ to set aside her apathy and become active. Despite English being a second language from Frances, her words were truly inspiring. A million New Zealanders like her, and no government would dare risk selling our treasures,
.
.
Frances first described the desperate conditions that afflict the poor or unemployed in other countries, where social welfare services barely exist, or not at all. She referred to the shame of someone loosing their job, and killing themselves and their entire family by mass-suicide – because the provisions that we often take for granted (or that right-wingers complain about), do not exist in their society.
“…I saw this country as a country so beautiful and with a humanity and the government with a heart [?] to looking after the poor and the under-privileged and the vulnerable groups. But throught the years I don’t know what has happened, I was too busy looking after kids, young children, and being someone who didn’t speak very good english. I sort of stayed low and keeped quiet and don’t want to say much about nothing against government. Although I do complain a lot at home if I say something, I see the government doesn’t do something nice to people.
But then I accidently walked through a public meeting … beginning of last year and then that was about state asset sale. And I was so shocked about what ‘s going to happen. And I thought, well, for the last 15 years my shower time from … ten minutes down to three minutes, because we need to have a budget for our power because the power bill kept going up.And then I cut my hair short so I don’t have to spend so much time [in the shower]. So all these things, and I decided maybe this year I will not harass my kids to have a showers if they don’t want to because it’s just getting more and more expensive.
There might be more stinky people around the city.
And hey, we are from middle income family, and during the winter time we fight often … argue with my husband about whether we should have the heater on. And I just never thought will come to this day!
And now they’re going to privatise these companies and sell to all those rich, only going to benefit the very rich few. Especially some foreign companies. And I was like, that’s not right, I can’t afford to pay even higher bills.”
And I thought, what happened? … From me not paying attention to politics. I actually don’t like politics. I want to just appreciate art and literature, but then from me not doing anything for so many years, what has this country become? Because a lot of people are like like me, they don’t like politics. They don’t want to take action; “I often give them moral support, I’ll give you some dollars, but you do the work. You go against the government.”
But then this time I realised what example I was setting for my children…
… But I feel great because I work with so many dedicated people and so many beautiful people, and selfless. And they are wonderful. We are all trying to make this country a better place for us, for others, for our children.
And for middle income like us, we struggle, and I just hate to think how the low income, how the beneficiary actually survive. And this government keep taking things away from the general public, from the weaker and from the vulnerable group. …
… Being a housewife, what can I do? I go out to collect signatures because that’s easy thing for me to do. It takes a lot and time and a lot of effort, but I’m glad I can make contribution. And I feel everybody here can make contribution…
… And being at home I can teach my kids, say, well don’t believe everything you heard from the media. And don’t just listen to what people say, you watch what they do. Especially our Prime Minister.
Frances finished with these thoughts,
“We can all make a difference… I saw so many people on the street. Some are angry but most of them are so depressed because they think government will never listen, and they think what we are doing going to be in vain, just not going to change anything. And I say to them, I say, if you don’t make any noise for this, what do you think government are going do to us next?
I want to set example to my children to say, if you really believe, and you have to believe, you can make a difference, you can change something. You just take actions and do whatever you can….
… But we have to still have to pressure the government, we want our referendum now, not later!
… One day when my kids ask me ‘mum have you done anything to protect us from being attacked by our government’ then I can say, I have done something. And I hope we can all say that, say we have done something to protect you from bad government policies.”
Amen to that, Frances.
Frances struggled at times with the English language – but the message she gave was as clear and meaningful as words could possibly convey.
This blogger found her to be truly inspirational.
As clouds darkened the evening sky, and the southerly ‘breeze’ gave a ‘bite’ to the assembled crowd, there was final entertainment from Steve and John,
.
.
And finally, a rousing applause given to Richard, who shouldered much of the responsibility in organising the event,
.
.
Meanwhile, further down the waterfront, others were more comfortable with their boutique beers and frothy lattes,
.
.
*
.
Want to help?
Make a donation (any size) to: BNZ, 02-0560-0158770-00
Volunteer by contacting: saynotoassetsales@gmail.com
Go to: any of the Relevant orgs listed below.
Additional
TV3: Asset sales referendum likely (6 Feb 2013)
TV3: Govt under fire over Contact redundancies (14 Feb 2013)
NBR: Supreme Court to ignore govt deadline on water rights decision (15 Feb 2013)
Youtube: Say No to Asset sales in Aotearoa NZ.mov
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Relevant orgs
Aotearoa is Not for Sale | Facebook
.
.
= fs =
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part rua)
.
.
Continued from:
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part tahi)
NZ, Wellington, 13 February 2013 – The first speaker was Peter Love; Te Atiawa, and Board Member of the Wellington Tenths Trust,
.
.
Peter Love spoke of having to buy a bottle of water from the dairy – and yet Maori were castigated for trying to assert their own water rights. Holding up a plastic bottle of water, he said it’s not about “Maori owning the water”,
“We have to make sure you don’t have to go into a dairy to buy this!“
He spoke of countries such as China sending their workers into Pacific Island nations to build infra-structure and buildings for the locals, but for a price. Peter Love spoke of powerful interests seeking valuable resources such as the fish in Cook Islands territorial waters.
He said asset sales would be a magnet for overseas investors,
“They’re after our assets!”
“Which is why“, he said, “we’re all here this evening challenging the government.”
Peter Love finished with a humorous touch,
“My wife said, ‘hullo – don’t get arrested Peter...”
He encouraged the crowd,
“…Don’t forget, keep it up. Sign the petition against it. And we may have to call you again to go to Parliament.”
The next speaker was Peter Love’s mokopuna (grandchild), Kaira Ranginui-Love, of Te Atiawa, who spoke directly to the many young people in the crowd,
.
.
Ms Ranginui-Love spoke with deep passion about her feelings for this country, and how others wanted a piece of our paradise,
“I love Aotearoa! I don’t know about you but I absolutely love this country. I believe Aotearoa is Heaven on Earth…
… For many of you, Aotearoa has been a home for you and your families since the time of the settlers, and for others.”
“… But regardless of how we all got here and what we’re all doing here, I think we can all agree what connects us is our love for Aotearoa.”“We are very lucky to live here. We have the oceans, the rivers, the forests, the lands, and all that dwell therein. So we must look after our country, and be the caretakers, for now and for the future generations to come. We need to be wary that we don’t allow our country to be exploited by those in a position of power. The National government, the National Party, they have an immoral agenda based on monetary gain only…”
“…Is this government listening to our views?”
“I think this govermnment blatantly ignores it’s people and what they want. What we all want. No thought has gone into the rippling effect that this will have on our futures.”
“…We’ll have no say, and we’ll have no rights. This referendum will help to stop the government from making a terrible mistake. Remember, everybody wants a slice of our country, our paradise. So it is time to stand up. It is time to fight for this generation and the generations to come….”
“…The time to act is now, before it’s too late.”
Next, the Mayor of Wellington, Celia Wade-Brown – a veteran campaigner against the privatisation of Wellington’s former “Capital Power” company in the 1990s – spoke of her thoughts on selling strategic assets that belong to the people,
.
.
Mayor Wade-Brown welcomed people to the rally and acknowledged the hard work by organisors to set up the rally,
“Let’s give the organisors a big round of applause!”
“This week there’ve been a number of really important issues raised that resonate with all of us; leadership; jobs; a fair go; and a clean environment; public ownership of strategic assets. Those aren’t alternatives to each other, they go hand in hand.”
The Mayor spoke of Deborah Littman visiting Wellington and talking to Council (see: Mayor pushes to give hundreds a pay increase ) about how a living wage has in helped many aspects of society in Vancouver and London, by raising incomes,
“Low pay doesn’t help the local economy; low pay doesn’t educational failure, and low pay doesn’t help poor health. So the living wage is an idea to inspire us, it’s a journey, not an overnight transformation… … a living wage is good for the local economy.”
Mr Wade Brown referred to a Greenpeace economic report which outlined ambitious ideas for new jobs, new prosperity, and a clean economy. She outlined Greenpeace’s ideas for how huge wealth could be created for New Zealand by building an economy based on 100% renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable transport.
The mayor went on to describe one of her earliest actions soon after being elected to the City Council in 1994,
“I voted in one of the earliest political decisions when I was elected on Council against the sale of Capital Power. And now the energy retail and lines businesses have been split up and sold and sold again and it’s really impossible to assess what they would be worth now.
But it could’ve been a huge help to the capital city as a basis for a smart grid, for electricity demand management, and for more manageble bills for people on low incomes. So I understand your concerns about selling of power generation companies.
More successfully, Wellington City Council voted against the sale of our Airport shares. Although one third does not give us control. But it does keep us in the loop and it gives us a considerable dividend that keeps your rates down.
And in the ’90s there were really truly mutterings - I saw Cr Stephanie Cook here earlier and she’ll back this up – there were muttering about selling of our council social housing. It never did get to a vote, thank goodness... “
Social housing for vulnerable tenants was a social partnership, she said.
Mayor Wade-Brown then described Wellington’s water supply and categorically stated,
“The basic public infrastructure should remain in public ownership and the charging policies and the conservation policies should be set democratically.”
She took a good natured ‘dig’ at Peter Love with the remark,
“And I would like to add that you don’t need to buy in bottles because there are free water fountains along the waterfront.“
Ms Wade-Brown told the audience that Council, in partnership with local Iwi, was bringing back alienated land to return to the Town Belt.
The Mayor added,
“So local government faces the same financial pressures as households do, as you do, as business does, and as central government does. But we’re not going to face those pressures by selling of our strategic assets. We won’t sell social housing, we won’t sell water infrastructure, we won’t sell the reserves that make this capital city so special.”
The mayor implored people to sign the petition – but not ten times,
“It doesn’t help to sign it ten times, ok guys? If you’ve signed it, you’ve signed it…
… And tonight people are tweeting, blogging, using Youtube, and everything else to have your say. And that’s my main message; stand up and have your say, in the capital city!Kia kaha.”
Next up – perhaps the country’s sanest, most common-sense economist – Ganesh Nana, rose to tell it from an economist’s perspective.
Perhaps surprisingly, he wasn’t tied up and thrown into the harbour. Economists in the last thirty years have had a bad rep – perhaps only second to certain policians.
But Ganesh Nana is a rare breed of economist. He sees through the neo-liberal fantasy world of ideology and tells us that the dogma of the New Right simply does not work as ‘the label on the can’ promised,
.
.
Ganesh Nana started by saying,
“I’m an economist, ok, so I promise not to say anything about ‘The Phoenix’ or anything about cats…”
That elicited a laugh from the crowd and then he launched straight into the issue of asset sales and started by asking,
“You might ask why would you at all be interested in hearing from an economist, and I ask the same thing; “why is anybody interested in hearing from an economist given whate total mess we’ve made of the economy to date, but never mind… You guys should really be asking for an apology from the economists given the mess we’ve made...”
“… But I will apologise on my own behalf for not not actually shouting out a lot louder evertime we’ve made a wrong turn. So today here I am shouting out just a bit louder for making a wrong turn yet again.”
The audience warmed quickly to Ganesh Nana’s self-deprecating comments and clapped at his remarks. Only a lone heckler, yelling out comments he must’ve thought were very hilariously witty (mistakenly), stood apart from the crowd.
Ganesh Nana continued,
“From a business perspective; a business person’s perspective; this is a very, very, very, simple problem facing us, or a simple question; why would you sell an asset?
I ask you that question and from my own academic perspective or background, when faced with that question I go to a dictionary and look up the definition of an asset.
It’s really quite simple… … you’ll find some words around something that is valuable and of use. And then I started to think as a business person or as an ordinary person why would I get rid of something that is valuable and of use?”
He then asked,
“…These assets that the Crown have, [that] the government on our behalf, [as] taxpayers, are holding. Do they continue to be valuable and useful?
And if so why are we getting rid of them?”
… From a business perspective the only reason I’d get of an asset is if it suddenly became a liability.
That is, it required a lot of upkeep and it wasn’t paying it’s way, so it wasn’t really an asset. And then, yes, you get rid of it fast.
But is anybody seriously trying to tell me that those electricity generation stations, and all the infra-structure around it, is something that we, as a nation, ‘ain’t gonna’ need for the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years?
Because if the answer to that is ‘yes’, then let’s get rid of it, because we don’t need it. But if we do need them, we need to hold onto them. It’s really quite that simple.”
Ganesh Nana was also adamant that not all economists follow the neo-liberal, monetarist line,
“…People who think that businesses or economists totally agree with getting rid of assets or following the market path, and there are lots of other reasons we could go into which are far too technical to go into tonight, about following the market and about how government shouldn’t be involved in assets; and shouldn’t be involved in the economy – those are smokescreens.
There are quite surprisingly some economists, myself included, who don’t follow that [ideology], and actually go back to the textbook… If it’s an asset, and it’s going to earn something over the future, you hold onto it for dear life. Because that’s what your future relies on!”
Ganesh Nana’s speech was well-received by the crowd. One could sense that it was a relief for many who were listening, that not all economists were wide-eyed free-marketeers demanding the dismantling of the State.
Ganesh Nana was followed by Geoff Bertram, Senior Economics lecturer at Wellington’s Victoria University, and one who had been closely studying the energy sector. Mr Bertram understands the mechanisms by which our energy companies are valued and re-valued – and his simple explanations quickly reveal these valuations as clever, malevolent, rorts.
The same rorts used to drive up power prices on an almost annual basis,
.
.
“Now, the government’s aiming to sell off nearly half of some state-owned companies worth about ten billion [dollars], so it’s hoping to get a bit about under half… perhaps $4.5 billion from the sales from anybody prepared to buy the shares that they’re going to issue.
I’m going to talk tonight really about the motivation that might lie behind those sales, and I personally think it boils down to two things.
The first is the desire of the Treasury to get the money and run before certain things become very apparent about the way that electricity prices have been set over the last two decades.
And the second reason I think is to close off policy options that might remain open to future governments if the assets remain in full public ownership. Because while the assets are in full public ownership, it is possible to change the way they are managed and change the way that electricity is supplied…”
Geoff Bertram then made an explosive accusation against the government which, if true, revealed a shocking reason why National is so hell-bent on privatisation of certain state assets,
“… It’s my view that probably the most important political consequence of the part-privatisation of SOEs is to place private investors in those enterprises and thereby immunise them against possible future policy that might reduce their value.
And since I think an important part of an improved government policy would indeed reduce their value, I am opposed to the asset sales…
…The companies have a very high valuation. The reason why they have a very high valuation is that they have successfully participated in a long-running rort to extract cash from residential electricity consumers by the inexorable driving up of prices of electricity.
That rort, has been possible, because government policy has allowed and has indeed supported the emergeance of a cartel of five, large, vertically-integrated, generator-retailers – three of whom are SOEs – which have been able to operate without any effective regulation, at the expense of consumers who were too vulnerable to protect their interests against price hikes.
And if you looked at the tracks of electricity prices over the last 20, 30 years you will have noticed that large industry has protected itself very successfully; commercial electricity buyers have done fine; residential who are the dis-organised, unrepresented, undefended, captive group of customers have seen their prices go up in real terms 100% since 1986.
And the main consequence of the electricity reforms has indeed been that doubling of the cost of electricity to ordinary households.
That’s a major cause of energy poverty; it’s been an important part in the growing inequality of income and wealth in this country; and it’s something that a socially responsible government would, in my view, be taking serious action to reverse.”
The audience broke into heavy applause as the implications of Geoff Bertram’s comments sank in.
It is simply extraordinary that none of the media present at the rally that day has reported Geoff Bertram’s amazing – and disturbing – analysis of the energy sector and electricity pricing in New Zealand. Is what he’s saying boring?! Too complicated?! Risking opening a can of worms?!
This should be a prime-time story on TV3′s “Campbell Live” and Radio New Zealand.
Geoff Bertram continued,
“Just to put that doubling of the residential price in context. New Zealand’s pretty much on it’s own in the OECD and if you look at the figures for other countries around the OECD, from 1986 to the present, the price of electricity to residential consumers in OECD Europe, in Australia, and in the United Kingdom, is still the same as it was in 1986. In the United States, Japan, and France, prices are down 25% , compared to where they were in 1986, in real terms. In South Korea they’re down 50%, compared to where they were in 1986.
New Zealand is the only only OECD country that has gone out there and driven up electricity prices 50%. We’re also pretty much the only country that doesn’t have a regulator in place, and where government doesn’t have any particular social policy relating to the pricing of essential services to the public.”
Geoff Bertram then explained what he called “the re-valuation game”, as it applied to electricity pricing in New Zealand,
“And here’s how it works.
You take a bunch of assets with a given value, and you look at the existing price, to consumers of the product, and you say “well look, we can get the price up”; so you project that higher price; you capitalise that; and then if you can get the price up the asset will be worth more; so then you re-value the asset; and then you go and use the higher value of the asset to justify raising the prices, and then you repeat.
And this is the circular process which has been going on in New Zealand now, in electricity, for more than a decade. It is completely legal under New Zealand law.
It is not illegal to profiteer or to gauge captive customers in this country. [In] very few countries is that true.
And it’s consistant with New Zealand’s generally accepted accounting practice which basically tells you that there’s a rotteness at the core of accounting practices in this country.”
Geoff Betram further described how the ECNZ had sold power stations to the newly formed Mighty River Power, in 1999, at a considerable mark-up. In effect government sold these power stations to itself and in the process pocketed a huge profit. To pay for those power stations, prices were raised, forcing captive residential consumers to pay more and more for their electricity. He added that we have been,
“…living under a government which for two decades has become effectively a corporate predator, in this sector, where once it used to be a social provider.“
The applause that followed that statement was louder than before. People were ‘getting’ what Geoff Bertram was telling them. He continued,
“Here’s the problem. Electricity was once an essential service provided to households at the lowest price, consistent with covering the industry’s costs.
Since 1986 the sector has been corporatised and part-privatised, and it’s pricing has been driven by the quest for profit by giant companies that have the market power to gouge their consumers.
As the owner of three of those companies, the New Zealand government has therefore become a predator. And now the Treasury wants to cash in on that rort by selling out half the government’s stake.
What that means in terms of the options for the future for government to turn around and come back from the predator model and return to a social service approach for energy supply, is being closed off.”
Geoff Bertram suggested that every household in New Zealand could be allocated 300kwh [kilowatt hours] of free power every month, and pay market rates for anything over and over used. He added,
“But if you want to deal with energy poverty and get kids out of hospitals with asthma and other respiratory diseases and so on, one of the really good things that you can do is get cheap energy into New Zealand households and that would be sustainable on the basis of the current government owned assets.
About 300 kwh free. [But if] you sell Mighty River and what’s feasible comes down to 200 [kwh]. You sell Genesis and what’s feasible comes down to 100 [kwh]. You sell Meridian and it’s gone…
What I’m saying is the contract that supplies the Rio Tinto smelter down at Bluff, the old Comalco contract, is the contract New Zealand households should have had from the start.
And it still could be done.”
Imagine, every household in the country, receiving a dividend of 300 kwh, each month. The positive benefits for low-income families, in damp, drafty houses, would be incalculable. Coupled with providing free meals in schools for children, it would be a major blow against child poverty in New Zealand.
But not if National get’s it’s way.
A new Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana coalition government must listen to people like Geoff Bertram, Ganesh Nana, et al, if we are to progress forward.
After Geoff Bertram, the crowd was entertained by Maarama Te Kira and Lucky Ngatuere,
.
.
Following on from the entertainment, Jane Kelsey, Law Professor from Auckland University, addressed the Rally. Professor Kelsey is also one of the country’s acknowledged experts on globalisation, and a staunch critic of the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement), which is being negotiated in secrecy and condemned worldwide.
Professor Kelsey has also been the target of some fairly vindictive statements from the NZ Herald (see: Gordon Campbell on the NZ Herald’s attack on Jane Kelsey).
Professor Kelsey started by welcoming old friends to the rally,
.
.
“…It was great to see lots of familiar faces from battles of the past, but it was also great to see so many young people here, because these battles are your battles for the future…
… I congratulate not only the organisor here, but those who have been running the campaign in Wellington gainst the asset sales, because it’s been a real inspiration across the country, and I know it’s being watched by people outside the country as well.
Some of those who are here will remember those battles we had in the mid 1980s when we were told that state-owned enterprises were simply a way of creating more efficient ways of keeping assets in our hands. And we said at the time that it was a lie. And we knew it was a lie and they knew it was a lie. And we proved it was a lie and then they sold them off and then we had to buy them back.
Because as we predicted would happen, when you have private owners, especially private foreign owners, who have no stakes in our future, they will strip the assets. And thats what Bell-Atlantic and Ameritech did with Telecom and that’s what Wisconson Railways did with the railways, and that’s what the [foreign ]banks that still own our banks, did with the Post Office Savings Bank and the BNZ and the Rural Bank, and so on, and we’ve been there and done that and we know what it means.”
At this point, Professor Kelsey held up a metre-square white board with heavy black lettering on it; ‘SAY NO’. It was a take on Winston Peter’s ‘NO’ sign from the Owen Glenn Donations affair in 2008. (see: Peters denies latest Owen Glenn allegations) The placard provoked laughter from the crowd who obviously recalled the significance of it.
” They also know that the problem [for the neo-liberals] was that we were able to reverse some of those failed privatisations, and other things that failed. Like when they tried to privatise ACC. Like when they tried to de-regulate the electricity market. … So what they have is a new strategy designed to lock-in and make potentially irreversible the kinds of policies that they want to see rule in the interests of their cronies for the indefinite future.
These particularly toxic legal products are known as Free Trade and Investment Agreements but they have nothing to do with trade, they’re actually investment protection agreements that make it almost almost impossible for us to be able to do the kinds of reversals of failed privatisations we’ve done in the past. We have a number of those agreements already.And they are potentially causing some problems.
Some of you will have followed what’s happening with the tobacco companies, and their threats to sue over the introduction of plain-packaging tobacco. What we have now now is a particularly virulent strand of this this toxic disease. It’s known as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, or the TPPA. We have other ways of describing the TPPA – Taking People’s Power Away. Toxic Profiteers Plundering Aotearoa.
What it’s designed to do, in particular in relation to investment, is to say ‘You have to open your doors without restrictions to the rights of foreign investors to be able to buy any of the assets within Aotearoa’.
Now, we already have an open door, and they’ve already signed away the ability to reverse some of that.But now they want to raise the thresholds even further, so that our ability to vet foreign owners is effectively taken out of our hands. But worse than that, once the foreign investors own the assets, these agreements give special guarantees to those foreign companies. They give guarantees that we will not alter our future laws and policies in ways that significantly affect the value or the profitability of their investments.
So once we have – or they have – given away our assets, our ability to do anything to recover them is not only constrained by the kinds of threats that we’ve seen in the past and concerns about ‘crisis’ and ‘investor confidence’ and all of that other bullshit – we have threats from foreign investors under an agreement like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, that they will sue our government not only for the loss of the value of their assets but the for the loss of future profits from those assets.
…It will not be a case that will be brought in our domestic Court. It is a case that will be brought in a secret, off-shore tribunal, where there will be three Arbitrators who would sit on the Hearing who last week were acting for an investor, and this week are acting as a judge in the cases brought before them by an investor. There is no system of precedent, there is no openess so we can see the documents, or even sit in on the Hearings. There may not even be a publication of their judgement at the end of it!
These kinds of secret offshore tribunals are so discredited now that many governments are saying they won’t agree to deals that allow foreign investors to have those powers. And the Australians have said in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement that they won’t agree to foreign investors having those powers.Our government – when John Key was first asked about this – said, “Oh, well if the Australians don’t think it’s a good thing, it sounds a little bit off-beam to me, so I suppose we’d go where Australia goes”.
Then his officials officials briefed him and said, “Well, actually Prime Miniter, no, we’re going to agree to foreign investors having these powers”.
So this Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is currently being negotiated. They want to try to close off the negotiations in October this year. The negotiations are all taking place in secret. We don’t get to see the final agreement until it’s signed off by the eleven countries negotiating it, which includes the US where the big foreign investors are based.
So, effectively the government is negotiating a Bill of Rights for foreign investors not only to enter and buy up this country, but to be able to threaten us in the future if we try to take back control of what is ours.”
Professor Kelsey invited the crowd to join in the campaign to oppose the TPPA, and pointed out information that was freely available on nearby tables. She warned the crowd,
“Join us in the campaign against the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, because so many of the things that we care about – We will not be able to effectively regulate in the future; we will not be be able to take back control of our future; if this agreement is passed. Parliament doesn’t get an effective say on it. This is an agreement negotiated by the Cabinet, it can be ratified by the Cabinet; and we have no say until it is a done deal.
We know that the Prime Minister is very good at secret done deals. We know that the Prime Minister is happy to do deals on behalf of his cronies. We know that the Prime Minister is prepared to sell out democracy, sovereignty, and tino rangatiratanga. And if we’re going to take back control of our futures then this agreement is a priority to stop this year, along with the asset sales.”
Professor Keley thanked the audience, who in turn cheered and clapped for her.
Meanwhile, Shane and Ariana (?) held aloft the anti-TPPA banner,
.
.
Next up, Bishop Justin Duckworth – the Anglican Bishop of Wellington. He had some very personal but salient anecdotes to share with us,
.
.
Bishop Duckworth greeted the crowd and started with this story from his own family,
” I was sitting out before and listening to the speakers, who were awesome, and I was suddenly talking to a new friend, I met a new friend, and he was telling me he was a father like I was a father, and we were discussing our children, and I suddenly remember a story that happened between my wife and my teenage boy. Classic conversation went down about domestic chores. And my beautiful wife, Jenny was saying to my boy, “it’s your turn to do the dishes”.
And he sort of said, “No, I did the dishes last night”.
And then she said, “I vacuumed the floor.”
And then he said, “Well, I watered the garden.”
And then she said, “Well, I dropped you to school.”
And it was escalating. Until my wife finally busted what I thought was the argument to end all arguments. And she said this; “I gave birth to you.”
I thought; that’s it. Argument stopped. How could you argue with that?
My teenage boy had this comeback, “And your generation destroyed the environment for us.”
Good line, eh?
And it’s true isn’t? It’s true that our generation not only did we destroy the global environment, but we have also instigated the global recession as well. And I think that the issues that we are talking about today about asset sales; the reason why that this issue in particular hits our public so strongly, and we have such a good turnout to this rally, is that because I think it’s at the core of a whole lot of other issues.
And so, as a man of faith, as a follower of Jesus, I just want to tell you what concerns me. And these are questions I have, I haven’t got the answers, but these are just questions.
Around asset sales I have questions around the lack of regulation already in place in the assets that we own…
… I heard Geoff speak, and I also read his articles, the reports about his papers a couple of weeks ago. I am concerned that that it is simply not fair, and not just …”
“If we were to sell our assets how less a control do we have? If we already have such limited control at the moment on the regulation of them, how much more limited will it be in the future?”
My second question I would have is this. Recognising… that the Kai Tiaki of New Zealand is Tangata Whenua’s Maori people, and the wairua of this country, the spirit of this country is held by that Kai Tiaki, by the Maori people. I would have questions around what happens if we start selling our assets overseas, what does that mean for the Kai Tiaki here?
“… Third question would follow on from the Greenpeace speaker [Bunny McDiarmid - no recording of her speech made; blogger's stuff-up], and that woud be this; What happens to the environment longer term if we lose responsibility and control of our power companies? What guarantees do we have whether actually our environment and our global climate change issues will actually be positively addressed by our country? I think there are huge issues there if we choose to sell our assets.”
Bishop Duckworth then concluded with this sobering anecdote – something personal, yet with global implications in how we treat each other,
“…Those of you who don’t know, my father was born in Burma – in Myanmar. A few years ago I went back with him; never visited before, me and my brother went back to Burma. Took my dad, visited a whole lot of wider family.
Once we were on a temple tour, as you do on these sort of trips. We were touring around these temples, and me and my brother, having a lot of sibling rivalry, we’d constantly compete to see who could get the best bargain for the little knick-knacks. You know that I mean? Those little things you buy constantly. So me and my brother were constantly competing for who could get the best deal on knick-knacks.
One night we were just finishing another temple tour and this guy sidled up to me and was selling me hand-painted pictures of Burmese countryside. Now I’ve been around long enought to know what you can normally get these pictures for.
Normally you pick these pictures up for about three US dollars.
But I was militant that night. And I thought I’m going to prove once and for all that I can run the biggest, best bargain in the world. So I drilled that fellow down to get the best bargain I could. And in the end I managed to get four pictures for five US dollars!…We were getting a lift home, and I was showing the pictures to my brother and saying, “Look, I’ve got the best bargain ever!”
And the driver of our horse and cart leant over and asked, “Hey, um, what’d you pay for those?”
I said, “I paid five US dollars for the four of them”.
He sez, “Ohhh, it must’ve been a bad day.”
I go, “What do you mean?”
“The man musn’t have been able to sell anything that day, so he had to sell his goods at cost price, at least at cost-price, just to buy rice for his family.”
And suddenly I realised what was just some crazy game, ideological game, for me, was actually life and death for other people.
And my big questions I have around this issue is this; is this some crazy ideological issue that we’ve been driven here, or is it actually about everyday people who are struggling, who need jobs, who need security, who need a future, and who need decent power.
And that’s my question.”
Ariana then troduced Maanu Paul, Chairman of the Maori Council, and who was currently taking the Government to the Supreme Court over water rights. Maanu Paul had some interesting observations, and made a call to action,
.
.
Maanu Paul offered a greeting to the people at the rally, and then began with,
“When I was asked to come and speak, at this, I asked, “who makes money out of this lot [asset sales] ‘?
And the answer was, we need to raise the consciousness of our nation in respect of our opposition to the sale of assets. The New Zealand Maori Council has had a long history of opposing the sale of our assets, beginning in 1986, when we established Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act, which we said, “nothing in this Act shall be contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi”.
And then we had the lands case in 1987 when we stopped the sale of state owned land. And then we had a negotiation with the Crown over the sale of the biggest man-made forest in the southern hemisphere – the Kaingaroa Forest. And then they sold the spectra. And we had an argument with the Crown over who owned the spectra. It’s about the same argumwent as who owns the water.
And the government of the day said, ‘Maori did not know anything about the spectra’. And I shot back to them, ‘Neither did they. An Italian fellow named Marconi knew about it, and the Poms didn’t know anything about it at all’.
The upshot is that they allocated us a portion of the spectra and now we’re a part of Two Degrees.
Finally we come to the sale of the dams and the capacity to generate power. The whakapapa so far tells us that the constant that is present in all this is that the Maori Council has ensured that state owned assets stay in this country.”
There was strong applause at this point, and with a smile, Maanu Paul continued,
“Thank you. Because I’m going to ask you to put your hands in your pockets, because you owe us.”
More good natured laughter, and Maanu Paul’s smile widened, as the audience understood the nature of his remarks. He explained,
“You owe us because if we didn’t take this government to the Tribunal, to the High Court, and the Supreme Court, our assets would’ve been gone, would’ve been sold by now.
That is the reality of what we’re facing. And so the Council is dedicated to ensuring that we leave the world a better place for our mokopunas. We leave the world a better place that wehen we were born to it. And the world we were born to was, as far as I was concerned, I had the right to go and fish in my foreshore in my foreshore and seabed… heh heh heh…
I had the right to swim in my rivers and my lakes and call them my own. I had the right to do what I wanted with my land without having it confiscated.
And all of these tell me right now, that those rights have been eroded. Those rights have been eroded because this government, and previous governments, have failed to properly honour the Treaty of Waitangi.”
At this point, Maanu Paul called for direct action of a sort that up until now had not been considered. His comments have been reported in the media, and this is what he said, verbatim,
“And so my message today, to us, is quite simply, is that we need to do more than sign a petition. We need to do more than gather in Frank Kitts Park, and what we need to do is to sit outside of Parliament and demand that we maintain the control of our assets.
What I’m suggesting – and I don’t know whether my Council’s going to agree with me about this – but what I’m suggesting is that we have a Noho Kainga [sitting] on Parliament grounds!
And we sit there until a fellow called Winston Peters might have put a Bill in Parliament that says ‘we are wishing to maintain ownership of the assets that we paid for in the taxes that’ve been levied upon us in the name of the public good’.
The audience resoponded enthusiastically to this suggestion, and the feeling was strong that many would’ve upped and left for Parliament’s ground at that very moment.
Maanu Paul continued,
“And the reason I’m saying this to you is that simply because there is no protection of your assets paid for by your taxes, which were levied upon you in the first place, in the name of the public good.
And we are the public and we should have a Nono Kainga to protect to protect our public good.”
Maanu Paul then sang a new “public anthem” to the crowd. This blogger can report that his singing is something to behold – Maanu Paul has an awesome singing voice. Firstly his song was rendered in Maori, and then for the benefit of those who don’t yet know the language (including this blogger), in English,
‘I am the water, the water is me,
Cascading down,
from Ranginui,
Enveloping all,
The environment,
I am the water,
the water is me.’
Ariana asked the crowd, “Yes, yes, yes! A sit down at Parliament – who’s up for it?“
The response was shouted from the crowd loud and in affirmation.
A new people’s action may be in the offing… Stay tuned, folks. This ain’t over – not by a long shot. Or by John Key’s lamentable imagination.
A new chapter is unfolding.
Continued and concluded at:
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part toru)
.
*
.
Additional
TV3: Asset sales referendum likely (6 Feb 2013)
TV3: Govt under fire over Contact redundancies (14 Feb 2013)
NBR: Supreme Court to ignore govt deadline on water rights decision (15 Feb 2013)
Youtube: Say No to Asset sales in Aotearoa NZ.mov
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Relevant orgs
Aotearoa is Not for Sale | Facebook
.
.
= fs =
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 13 February 2013 – Set against an overcast early evening sky, and a chilly southerly, several hundred Wellingtonians of all ages, races, political affiliations, and backgrounds came together at Frank Kitts Park, on Wellington’s waterfront,
.
.
Their common unity of purpose was to oppose the partial sale of state-owned assets,
.
.
Electricity-dustry expert, Molly Melhuish, with others from DEUN (Domestic Electricity Users Network). Ms Melhuish (center, holding white clipboard) is intimately familiar with the working of the electricity industry in this country and was a key member in campaigns to oppose electricity privatisation in the 1990s – including Wellington’s Capital Power.
.
.
The messages were simple, and to the point. From Labour,
.
.
.
… to the Mana Party,
.
.
The message for National was clear – what’s ours is ours,
.
.
This Wellingtonian understood the folly and false-economy of selling state assets which are money-making cash-cows. Right wing politicians know this – but their zealous obedience to neo-liberal dogma seems to over-ride any semblance of common-sense,
.
.
Many in the crowd were of an age to recall the sale of Telecom – something that was resisted by 93% of New Zealanders,
.
.
Interestingly, at least one right-wing politician has belatedly realised that selling state assets was a mistake – see: Bolger: Telecom sale a mistake
Dedicated ANFS activist, Frances, had a very simple question for Dear Leader,
.
.
ANFS activist, Athena, handing out leaflets to people in the crowd and discussing issues with them,
.
.
With media filming the event, ANFS co-convenor, Ariana, opened the Rally with a welcome to the crowd and an introduction of the speakers who had been invited to address the rally, with their thoughts on the sale of state assets,
.
.
The speakers came from a variety of backgrounds, and each gave their perspective on the issue of selling the people’s assets.
To be continued:
Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part rua)
.
*
.
Additional
TV3: Asset sales referendum likely (6 Feb 2013)
TV3: Govt under fire over Contact redundancies (14 Feb 2013)
NBR: Supreme Court to ignore govt deadline on water rights decision (15 Feb 2013)
Youtube: Say No to Asset sales in Aotearoa NZ.mov
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Relevant orgs
Aotearoa is Not for Sale | Facebook
.
.
= fs =
Still someone else’s country
.
.
Wellington, Newtown, 9 February 2013 – As the issue of state asset sales and other New Right policies are on National’s impending agenda, the Newtown-branch of the Mana Party considered it worthwhile taking the time to look back at recent history. The events of today are firmly rooted in the past.
The New Right had taken power in Britain with the election of Margaret Thatcher in May 1979, and in the United States, with the election of Ronald Reagan in November 1980. Our turn came in July 1984, with the snap election called by an inebriated Rob Muldoon. (Intoxication on power and alcohol – not a very healthy mix.)
The Labour government that was swept to power (see: New Zealand general election, 1984) was not the Labour Party that people thought they were voting for. In total secrecy, Labour had been captured by a cabal of fanatical neo-liberal reformers. It was a government firmly under the control of what we know today, as the ACT Party.
Twenty nine years later…
Mana’s Newtown Branch decided to hold a public screening of Alister Barry’s hard-hitting, insightful, 1996 documentary, “Someone elses’s country“. The story told within that hour-and-a-half documentary is as valid today as it was three decades ago. (In fact, watch “Someone elses’s country” and then watch Bryan Bruce’s 2011 documentary, “Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand” – and the linkages of the radical transformation of our country is all but complete.)
Prior to the screening, the audience was welcomed by Mana Newtown organisor, Ariana, who gave a brief rundown of the content and it’s impact on our society,
.
.
Many in the audience were young people who either had not been born in the 1980s, or were too young to remember the calamitous events that were unfolding. To these people, the events we now understand as Rogernomics and Ruthenasia would have been like the 1951 Waterfront Lockout dispute that rocked the nation.
Following Ariana, a brief introduction to the film was made by sitting Wellington Councillor, Bryan Pepperell,
.
.
Pepperell said,
“It’s getting into it’s final stages where the agenda to actually get democracy out of the way of business is actually now reaching a high-point.There’s an awful lot of window-dressing and democracy in New Zealand context has become that, substantially window dressing…”
He then shared with the audience when his first disquiet over the election of the Lange Government came to him,
“When David Lange actually said on national television – and I remember the day when I sat and I watched it and I thought I can’t believe what I’m hearing – ‘from now on business is going to make the major decisions’. And that was actually a fairly startling thing as far as I was concerned… unfortunately poor old David probably got quite into something that was bigger than him, and here we are today with the consequences of those early decisions. And of course the National Party is utterly committed to helping it’s friends further the direction that we started in.”
.
The introduction completed, the screening began,
.
.
For many of us who lived through the period, memories of the time came flooding back. In some instances, several people in the audience even recognisedthemselves – with much younger faces – in stills and video footage of protest actions.
It is also worth recalling that despite calls from throughout the country, TVNZ’s Board rejected calls for widespread broadcasting claiming it it “too political”.
“Too political”?!?!
Of course it was bloody political!
It was so damn political that TVNZ’s boardmembers would have soiled their panties at the thought of upsetting their Ministerial masters in the Beehive.
As the doco’s producer, Alister Barry , said in November 2009,
“It was no accident that Someone Else’s Country wasn’t screened on TVNZ when it was completed in 1996.
It wasn’t that the Business Roundtable needed to actually tell the TV programmers not to screen it. Television executives knew perfectly well where their salaries came from and that TVNZ was being readied for sale.
Fourteen or fifteen minutes of every television hour – the very limit of viewers’ tolerance – was filled with messages carefully and expensively constructed to reach into their fears and appetites. Clutches of advertisements urged New Zealanders to “buy”, to think and feel like frustrated consumers. Airing a documentary which led viewers to think of themselves less as consumers and more as citizens capable of taking political action was not in the interests of the big corporations controlling the advertising dollar.”
It was not until 2003 that TVNZ finally mustered the courage to air “Someone elses’s country” – on a Sunday afternoon. Hardly peak viewing time.
Barry also had this pointed insight to make,
“It had been anticipated by New Zealand’s New Right revolutionaries, that by the early 2000s our values would have changed and we would have come to think like them, accepting poverty and extreme wealth as both normal and necessary. To pursue personal advantage and to care less about our neighbours. But studies show that in fact our values haven’t changed much from those of our parents and grandparents.
What is happening though, is that we are forgetting how things used to be and who changed them. Even as the human and environmental costs of the neoliberal experiment increase, we are finding it harder and harder to imagine how things could be better.I hope you will find this film a useful antidote to forgetfulness.”
See: IBID
Which is what this country so desperately needs – an antidote to the collective amnesia which so many of our countrymen and woman so often succumb to.
As this blogger noted above; imagine the disquiet and anger that would result if “Someone elses’s country” was broadcast at prime-time, on a major tv channel – and then followed by Bryan Bruce’s, “Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand“…
Addendum 1
The neo-liberal agenda continues. National plans to partially-privatise three power companies; a mining company; and Air New Zealand (which was privatised once before on 17 April 1989).
National is implementing a privatised form of education via “Charter Schools”.
And the economy is to be further “de-regulated” and made the rights of foreign corporations extended.
Addendum 2
In a society run along neo-liberal lines, it becomes dangerous to upsets one’s masters investors,
.
.
And shame upon shame to Jackson and his mates for aiding and abetting Hollywood’s Heavies.
What are they hiding?
*
.
Additional Info
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Anti asset sale rally – this Wednesday 13 February
.
.
.
= fs =
John Key: four years and a fixed date for Parliament?
.
.
Four Year Term?
Periodically, our politicians try it on, and try to persuade us to give them more power.
Two previous referenda in 1967 and 1990 asked the question whether or not the Parliamentary term should be extended from three to four years.
The public, bless their cotton socks, obligingly responded with resounding ‘No’ votes to any extension of the Parliamentary terms. Unsurprisingly, the public wanted to keep a firm grip on the tenure of our politicians.
Let’s not forget that we have no Upper House, no written Constitution, and few binding referenda to speak of. Once we elect MPs, they are practically free to do as they wish.
Which they do with unpleasant predictability.
National’s latest intention to sell 49% of several state assets – despite being a minority government and despite over-whelming public opposition is another clear case of politicians doing what they want and screw the will of the people.
Key’s agenda to sell 49% of Mighty River Power despite a referendum in the offing is another indicator of politician’s arrogance.
And Key wants us to give him (or Labour) an extension to the three year Parliamentary term?!?!
No thank you.
If politicians want an extension to their employment contract (which is what elections effectively are), then they have to earn our trust. To date I have seen very little trust earned.
Let’s be clear here. A four year term may well be more “efficient” to the process of government.
But “efficient government” is not necessarily synonymous with democracy and public participation. In fact, some very “efficient” governments have turned out to be very undemocratic and very, very nasty.
A three year term may be “inefficient” – but by the gods, it’s the one single leash on executive power that the public currently holds over our elected representatives.
If politicians want our trust to be given a four year term – they first have to earn it.
And anyway, if a government is doing a good job – the people will vote accordingly, won’t they?
In the meantime, I, for one, will be keeping a firm grip on that three-year leash.
Fixed Election Date?
Key also made passing reference to having a fixed election date, as do our American cuzzies.
The benefit of this, he maintains, is that a fixed date takes away the ability of politicians to manipulate the date of elections to suit their own agenda.
Media reports barely refered to this suggestion. I suspect that Key has mentioned this, only in passing, because for him it’s a side issue.
It’s actually a good idea.
But he’s not interested in this good idea. He wants a four year elecoral cycle.
Wrapping his four-year agenda in the Fixed Date “gift-paper” is a way for him to present a rather questionable “gift” dressed up in something nice.
Public Referenda or Parliamentary Decision?
These two issues can be decided either by binding public referenda, or by 75% of Parliament voting to enact the reforms.
It’s a shame that the same criteria are not used to determine the fate of our state own assets.
What about it, Mr Key?
.
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 at 10:46
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Four Year Terms, Fixed Election Date, and other matters
To: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: David Shearer <david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz>,
Winston Peters <winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz>,
Metiria Turei <metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz>,
Russel Norman <Russel.Norman@parliament.govt.nz>,
“Hone.Harawira@parliament.govt.nz” <Hone.Harawira@parliament.govt.nz>,
“peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz” <peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz>Kia ora Mr Prime Minister,
It has been reported in the Media that you have raised twin issues of extending the Parliamentary Term from 3 to 4 years, and having a fixed Election Date.
To enact these reforms, either a binding referenda or 75% of Parliament will have to vote in favour.
Binding Referenda or 75% of Parliament seems a democratic way to enact such important changes.
In which case will you also be using the same process to allow the People or Parliament to decide whether or not to proceed with the 49% sell-down of certain State assets?
After all, if you want the people to give you something – shouldn’t we expect the same courtesy in return?
You want a four year term – we want the chance to vote on our State assets. Let’s do it.
Go to the people.
See what they say.
I can live with the results. Can you?
Regards,
- Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
Final Thought
At a time when National implemented a 90 Day Trial period for new employees, John Key wants to extend his Parliamentary employment by a year?
I don’t think so, chum.
.
*
.
Other Blogs
The Standard: Against a four year term
Imperator Fish: Why we must have a four-year parliamentary term
Public Address: A four-year parliamentary term?
Tumeke: Why a 4 year term would be madness
.
.
= fs =
Penny Bright Goes To Parliament
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 31 January 2012 – Activist and Mayoral candidate, Penny Bright went to Parliament, to attend to unfinished business.
MP for Epsom, John Banks may have escaped prosecution for not properly declaring campaign donations in the 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign (see previous related blogpost: John Banks – escaping justice (Part Toru), et al), by a legal technicality - but self-declared anti-corruption campaigner, Penny Bright has other ideas.
Ms Bright is one of several people engaged in citizens’ actions to bring John Banks to justice. Another person, Graham McCready, a retired accountant, has launched a private prosecution against Banks (see: Judge calls Banks to court over donations).
On 31 January, Ms Bright arrived on the grounds of Parliament. She was scheduled to appear before Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Committee at 11.15am. (See copy of submission here: Justice and Electoral Committee Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) – Submission by Penny Bright)
Ms Bright had spare time and wanted to make her cause more widely known to the public. She set about preparing to raise banners, in front of the statue of the former, late, Premier Richard John Seddon.
Her activities came to the almost immediate attention of a Parliamentary security guard,
.
.
There was discussion between the guard and Ms Bright,
.
.
Ms Bright explained her intentions to the Guard. Ms Bright then related her conversation with the Guard to this blogger that if she went ahead with her “mini-protest”, she could (would?) be trespassed from Parliament’s grounds for 24 hours – thereby threatening her scheduled appearance before the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.
I found this to be utterly extraordinary. Ms Bright had done nothing illegal. It was inconceivable that a single woman by herself could pose a “clear and present” danger to the Western hegemonic military-industrial complex.
I attempted to elicit an answer from the Guard on this issue, but he became reluctant to state the position clearly, on record, regarding Ms Bright’s rights to hold a peaceful protest on Parliament’s grounds. The Guard moved away and Ms Bright packed up her gear,
.
.
Ms Bright quietly said to me,
“We can come back later.“
.
At the Select Committee hearing, the Committee chairperson, Tim Macindoe, welcomed Ms Bright and reminded her of New Zealand’s defamation laws.
Supported by local body Wellington activist Maria Van Der Meel, from Wellington loves Manners Mall , Ms Bright stated her case,
.
.
Ms Bright advised the Select Committee that under current rules, copies of financial electorate returns (donations, expenditure, etc) were not available to the public except by viewing the documents at the local Electoral office where they are stored (in this case, Auckland). The rules dictate that citizens may take notes from the returns – but are not allowed to photocopy, photographe, scan, or take any other form of facsimile copy.
Some members of Parliament sitting around the table seemed unaware of this fact. [Blogger's Note: When I tried to obtain a copy of John Banks' 2010 mayoral-campaign electoral returns, my request was turned down. I would have to travel to Auckland; physically visit the Office during opening hours; and view the hard-copy. I could take notes, but otherwise not record them electronically. This seems an untenable situation in a suppodsedly otherwise open democracy. - Frank] Committee member Jackie Blue questioned if returns could not be requested under the Official Information Act.
Ms Bright explained that Graham McCready has taken a private prosecution out against John Banks and that his case requires Banks’ electoral returns as evidence for his case. The Police were able to able to obtain a copy for their investigation into John Banks’ returns – and questioned why this was denied to members of the public?
Ms Bright stated that the finding of the Police that John Banks could effectively delegate the compiling of his candidate’s election expenses and donations, and sign this ‘declaration’ without first personally double-checking this information for accuracy – defied belief.
Ms Bright produced a copy of her signed declaration as a fellow 2010 Auckland Council Mayoral candidate, and asked if any members of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, (who would have had to sign similar candidate’s declaration), had delegated the responsibility for the accuracy of this information to someone else?
Ms Bright stated that, in her considered opinion, all electoral returns should be scanned and made publicly available online.
On a related issue, Ms Bright was critical of the fact that some candidates [Blogger's note: this has been amended and names removed] claimed to be independents – yet were members of political parties. She questioned how candidates could be deemed “independent” whilst openly members of political parties.
To which Tim Macindoe responded that whilst he might stand as a candidate in a local body election, he would not necessarily be representing the National Party, and nor would he require or request an endosement.
Ms Bright responded that not everyone in the community might be aware of a candidate’s Party affiliations and using the “independent” label could be mis-leading. She said her personal philosophy was “presume nothing”.
Ms Bright raised the issue that New Zealand is internationally well-regarded and first-equal with Denmark and Finland for a lack of corruption in New Zealand (see: Corruption Perceptions Index 2012). She said that recent events in this country suggested that we no longer merited our standing in the international community for top ranking in lack of corruption.
However, Ms Bright pointed out a number of areas where New Zealand lacked a domestic legislative framework for genuine transparency,
- lobbying – there currently being no ‘Register of Lobbyists’, or ‘Code of Conduct for Lobbyists’,
- and ‘State Capture’ – where vested interests gained influence at ‘policy’ level, prior to legislation being passed.
On the issue of civil servants and political figures leaving the public service and entering the private sector (eg; consultancy-work) – Ms Bright denounced the practice of the “revolving door”, and recommended a “quarantine period”.
A policy of ‘post-separation employment’ could deny sensitive information from being used for personal gain.
It was also pointed out that, at Local Government level, there was no mandatory requirement for a ‘Register of Interests’ for elected representatives (unlike central government MPs).
Ms Bright also criticised some local bodies for not revealing details of consultants and contactors they used. Ms Bright said this constituted a lack of transparency and said she had a right to know who was being paid from the public purse, ie; the names of consultants and private contractors; scope; terms, and value of these contracts (see: Call for end to council secrecy, Super-city plan for mortgagee sales).
The committee had been discussing, with previous submitters, the nature of donations to candidates standing for local bodies. The committee asked Ms Bright where she stood on the issue.
Ms Bright took a minute or so to consider the question.
She replied,
“I don’t believe in anonymous donations. Anonymous means we don’t know what’s going on and if anyone is in someone’s pocket.”
Committee member, NZ First MP, Denis O’Rourke, asked,
“Do you believe all donations should be recorded?”
Ms Bright replied that $10 or $20 donations need not have their donors publicly recorded, but that a threshold should be established,
“Maybe set at $500?”
She pointed out that both John Banks and Len Brown had recorded some donations as “anonymous”.
Committee member, Katrina Shanks asked whether this would affect people donating to causes and shouldn’t they be allowed to do so as of right?
Ms Bright replied that this issue could be difficult. It might be seen that there was a difference between privacy and private donations to a cause and transparency for funding candidates in public elections.
After fifteen minutes, the Chair thanked Ms Bright for her submission and presentation to the Committee. Ms Bright thanked the committee, and she and Ms Van Der Meel left the Committee Room.
The two women returned to Parliament’s forecourt and proceed to unfurl the banners that Ms Bright had wanted to use earlier in the day.
A passing member of the public (woman in white dress) voiced her support for their cause and consented to being photographed with the pair,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And then to the Supreme Court in Lambton Quay, where Ms Bright “flew the flag” against the theft/sale of the people’s assets,
.
.
The banners caught the attention of the tail-end of the “Super Sevens” parade that was moving through Lambton Quay at the same time. One of the security guards took Ms Bright’s banners in good humour,
.
.
Whether or not one agrees with Ms Bright’s beliefs and philosophy - no one can deny her dedication to causes she feels strongly about. By anyone’s definition, two protest actions and an appearance at a Select Committee is undeniably dedication.
[Amended: 3 February 2013]
.
*
.
References
Parliament: Justice and Electoral Select Committee members
Additional contributed material
Penny Bright
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
* Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
* Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
* At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
* Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Garrick Tremain sums it all up in one cartoon!
.
All my blogposts summed up in one, concise cartoon…
.
.
Acknowledgement
Peter Martin
Related blogpost
Thieving Tories chomping at the bit to sell our state assets
.
.
= fs =
Thieving Tories chomping at the bit to sell our state assets
.
.
Even through the printed word on an internet news-site, it’s pretty obvious that Key can barely contain his zealous obsession to partially-privatise Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, and further down-sell Air Zealand.
There is a reason for this.
National is nearing it’s Use-By date and is only one by-election away from losing the government benches. The Nats are living on “borrowed time” and need to get at least one asset sale completed to balance their books.
In case anyone was still deluded in thinking that Key wanted to give “mums and dads” the chance to “invest” in our own power companies – think again.
.
.
National is desperate to balance the books and return to a slim surplus by 2014/15. (See related blogpost: “It’s fundamentally a fairness issue”- Peter Dunne)
This is by no means a “done deal” and the public can still make life uncomfortable for this shonkey “government”. Large numbers of New Zealanders voicing their opposition to what amounts to the theft of our state assets will keep pressure on Key and his cronies.
One such opportunity will be a mass public rally on Wednesday, 13 February, at Frank Kitts Park on the Wellington waterfront. This blogger will be there to cover the event, and encourages everyone to turn up.
And bring a person with you. That will effectively double the numbers!
This will be our opportunity to send a strong message to National.
.
.
.
Addendum 1
Feel free to pass the link to this blogpost on to others via email, Facebook, etc. Full permission is given to re-post; re-publish; print, and distribute.
Frank Kitts Park – see you there!
Addendum 2
Can’t attend but still want to make your voice heard?
Email Key at: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
Send letters to the editor at: Dominion Post <editor@dompost.co.nz>
NZ Herald <editor@herald.co.nz>
The Press <letters@press.co.nz>
Otago Daily Times <odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz>
Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
Make your voice heard loud and clear!
.
.
= fs =
Aotearoa Not For Sale – Big signature-gathering push in Kilbirnie, Wellington
.
.
24 November, Wellington – Aotearoa is Not For Sale (ANFS), Wellington branch, took part in a nationwide push to gather more signatures for the petition, calling for a referendum on state asset sales.
ANFS campaigners took to the streets of Kilbirnie, one of Wellington’s eastern-suburns, close to the airport.
Campaigners took up prime spots in Bay Rd – Kilbirnie’s main street – and outside Pak’n'Save, in the next street adjacent.
Phil, Shane, and Warwick, posing for the camera, before taking up positions around Pak’N'Save’s main doors,
.
.
Ready to take up the challenge,
.
.
A citizen only to happy to sign Warwick’s petition,
.
.
This gentleman needed no encouragement to sign Phil’s petition and was not happy with National’s plans to partially-privatise assets that belong to us all,
.
.
.
No sooner does one finish signing, and another person comes up to Warwick,
.
.
Collecting more signatures in Bay Road, Kilbirnie’s “main drag”,
.
.
.
All up, several hundred signatures were collected and several dozen electoral enrollent forms handed out. It was a good day for hittuing the streets.
One interesting thing that we found was that most people had already signed the petition. It seems the campaign is well supported by New Zealanders of all walks of life. (John Key – take note.)
Anyone wanting to download the petition can do so from here: http://keepourassets.org.nz/
If you can’t print of a petition form, please email this blogger, and I will post out forms to you,
.
.
Remember – every signature counts! (And make sure you are on the Electoral Roll – if you’re not on the Roll, your signature may be discounted.)
.
*
.
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
